Figures who Shape Scriptures, Scriptures that Shape Figures: Essays in Honour of Benjamin G. Wright III 3110586460, 9783110586466

Table of contents :
Contents
Preface
Bibliography of Benjamin G. Wright III (1984–2017)
Part 1: Figures
Moses in the Septuagint
Adding Profile to Moses and Joshua
No Small Difference When Introducing Samuel in Sirach 46:13
David in the Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum
The Reception of the Figure of David in Late Antique Synagogue Art
A New Suggestion Concerning the Enigmatic Elioud of the Book of the Watchers
Simon and the Actualization of Wisdom in the Jerusalem Temple
Part 2: Scriptures
The Book of Ruth as Social Commentary in Early Judaism
Glimpses into Ben Sira’s Society
Exemplars of Humility and the Discourse of Authority in Second Temple Judaism
Gibberish?
Die Idee von „Geschichte“ im 2. Makkabäerbuch
Where’s Rome?
King and God
List of contributors
Index

Citation preview

Figures who Shape Scriptures, Scriptures that Shape Figures

Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies

Edited by Friedrich V. Reiterer, Beate Ego, Tobias Nicklas and Kristin de Troyer

Volume 40

Figures who Shape Scriptures, Scriptures that Shape Figures Essays in Honour of Benjamin G. Wright III Edited by Géza G. Xeravits and Greg Schmidt Goering

ISBN 978-3-11-058646-6 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-059637-3 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-059309-9 ISSN 1865-1666 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck ♾ Printed on acid-free paper Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com

Contents Preface  vii  Bibliography of Benjamin G. Wright III (1984–2017)  xi 

Part 1: Figures  Emanuel Tov  Moses in the Septuagint  3 Kristin De Troyer  Adding Profile to Moses and Joshua  The First Revision of the Book of Joshua  21 Jeremy Corley  No Small Difference When Introducing Samuel in Sirach 46:13  30 József Zsengellér  David in the Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum  Reshaping the Contemporary Cultural Memory  56 Géza G. Xeravits  The Reception of the Figure of David in Late Antique Synagogue Art  71 Matthew Goff  A New Suggestion Concerning the Enigmatic Elioud of the Book of the Watchers  91 Greg Schmidt Goering  Simon and the Actualization of Wisdom in the Jerusalem Temple  105

Part 2: Scriptures  Samuel L. Adams  The Book of Ruth as Social Commentary in Early Judaism  127

vi  Contents Ibolya Balla  Glimpses into Ben Sira’s Society With a View to the Connections between Ben Sira and Amos   140 Bradley C. Gregory  Exemplars of Humility and the Discourse of Authority in Second Temple Judaism A Comparison of Sirach and the Community Rule   151 Eric D. Reymond  Gibberish?  Sir 4:14 in Ms A I (T-S 12.863) Verso, Line 4  164 Tobias Nicklas  Die Idee von „Geschichte“ im 2. Makkabäerbuch  178 Sean A. Adams  Where’s Rome? A Possible Roman Parallel to the Translation of the Septuagint in the Letter of Aristeas   197 Barbara Schmitz  King and God Conceptions of Rule and God in 3 Maccabees   211 List of contributors  231  Index  233 

Preface Benjamin G. Wright, III, University Distinguished Professor in the Department of Religion Studies, Lehigh University, launched the public portion of his academic career in 1979, with a research report to the Philadelphia Seminar on Christian Origins on “The Figure of Phineas in Philo.” In 2019, then, one year from the publication of the present volume, Ben will have completed four decades of a still unfinished yet already remarkable scholarly career. So it is fitting, as Ben reaches this forty-year milestone in his career—as well as his sixty-fifth birthday in January 2018—to pause and reflect on the impact of Ben’s life and work as a scholar, teacher, mentor, and mensch. Ben’s scholarly writing treats a wide range of subjects in the history and religion of early Judaism and Christianity through the end of the first century CE. His repertoire revolves primarily around two gravitational centers: Hellenistic Jewish literature from the Second Temple Period—especially Jewish wisdom literature—and issues of translating Jewish literature from Hebrew into Greek. These two interests took shape during his doctoral work in Christian Origins at the University of Pennsylvania, under the direction of Robert Kraft. His dissertation—completed in 1988 and published as No Small Difference with Scholars Press the following year—on translation technique in the book of Sirach took up the thorny problem of the relationship between the grandson’s Greek translation and its supposed Hebrew vorlage. The project was pioneering for at least two reasons. First, Ben’s dissertation was one of the earliest to analyze ancient texts by means of computers. Using digital texts from the newly established Computer Assisted Tools for Septuagint Studies (CATSS) project, he compared the Greek versions of Sirach to the Hebrew versions and to other Greek translations of the Bible on a scale nearly impossible to achieve without these new computational tools. Second, he demonstrated that Ben Sira’s grandson used a relatively free translation technique. This suggests that modern scholars, contrary to prevailing assumptions, cannot responsibly use the Greek texts of Sirach to reconstruct an original Hebrew parent text, especially when the Hebrew is missing or uncertain. Nearly thirty years after the dissertation’s publication, Sirach scholars are still absorbing and wrestling with the implications of Ben’s doctoral research. Ben’s publishing since his first monograph has proceeded at a dizzying pace. As of this writing, he has seven books in print, with two additional booklength commentaries on Sirach underway. In addition to No Small Difference, he has published a commentary on the Letter of Aristeas; a book on The Apocryphal Ezekiel, with Michael Stone and David Satran; a collection of his own es-

viii  Preface says on Sirach, Aristeas, and the Septuagint; two edited volumes of essays; and a translation of the Septuagint, coedited with Albert Pietersma. In addition, Ben has written more than seventy scholarly articles in peer-reviewed journals and edited volumes, numerous scholarly notes, more than thirty encyclopedia articles, numerous introductions or commentaries on ancient works in handbooks of various kinds, and more than sixty book reviews. Perusing Ben’s curriculum vitae, I am struck by the number of multi-author projects on which Ben has collaborated, a testament to his unusual collegiality. Ben has become especially renowned as a scholar of Sirach. In addition to his first book, he has published dozens of scholarly articles on the text. The choice of Ben to write both the Hermeneia and the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL) commentaries on Sirach testifies to his status as the foremost expert on the subject, not only in North America but also in the entire world. The breadth of his impact, however, extends well beyond Sirach scholarship. Ben’s voluminous scholarly corpus has deepened and broadened our understanding of a wide range of issues regarding the Septuagint, Jewish wisdom literature, and translation technique. His recently published and erudite commentary for de Gruyter on the Letter of Aristeas—the first ever complete and comprehensive commentary on the work—demonstrates a depth of understanding both of the Letter itself as well as of the broad Greek literary context in which it belongs. His extensive scholarly work on the Septuagint and on translation issues crystalized practically in the New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS), which Ben co-edited, and for which Ben provided the translations for Sirach and The Epistle of Ieramias. The achievement represents the first complete translation of the Septuagint into a modern language since the 19th century. A second edition of the NETS is underway. Ben’s work on the Septuagint has promoted a sea change in scholarship: from viewing the Septuagint primarily for its value to text critics as a witness to the earliest Hebrew Bible manuscripts, to seeing it as a corpus that helps us understand Hellenistic Judaism. In sum, Ben has contributed profoundly to our understanding of early Jewish wisdom and other Hellenistic literature, scribal culture, translation and transmission practices, pseudepigraphic habits, Jewish identity, the role of sacred texts, among other topics. Beyond his own scholarly writings, Ben has played an outsized role in fostering the scholarship of others. His impact on the field includes his extraordinary roles as Editor and Associate Editor for the Journal for the Study of Judaism Supplements monograph series, Co-Editor in Chief for the SBL Commentary on the Septuagint, Area Editor for The Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception, member of the editorial board for the Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Series at de Gruyter, Secretary, Vice-President, and President of the Executive

Preface  ix

Committee of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, member of the editorial boards of numerous journals, and for his service on various program units of the SBL. In addition, he has mentored numerous graduate students, serving as an external reader or examiner on at least five dissertation committees, quite an achievement for someone who teaches in an undergraduate program. Without exhausting his role in fostering the scholarship of others, I will mention one final contribution: informally mentoring young scholars in the field. Many of my colleagues and I have personally benefitted from Ben’s guidance in many ways, large and small, from phone consultations, to commenting on draft articles, from constructive criticism of presentations, to engaging us in conversations over meals and drinks. All of the ways in which Ben has fostered the scholarly pursuits of others points to his selflessness and generous spirit. Finally, those of us fortunate enough to have known Ben personally recognize that his talents transcend his scholarly endeavors. In addition to his exceptional scholarship, Ben has excelled as a hockey coach and musician. He has coached middle school, youth travel, high school, and college hockey teams. At Lehigh University, he has served as Head Coach, Associate Head Coach, or Faculty Advisor to the school’s Division 1 club team for more than 10 years, where the Eastern Collegiate Hockey Association conferred upon him its first ever Coach of the Year Award in 1999. As an ardent guitarist and singer, Ben has performed in the past with several bands. He now plays a gig every now and then, or just for fun with friends. He even travels to conferences with his guitar, where he entertains colleagues after long days of intellectual exchange. He once built his own guitar. These personal achievements, alongside his academic ones, highlight the extraordinary human being who is Ben Wright. This volume is the brainchild of Géza Xeravits, who proposed the project to me and invited me to co-edit it with him. It was an invitation I could not decline. Given Ben’s work on the transmission and translation of biblical traditions during the Second Temple period, we settled on the leitmotif of figures and scriptures, a theme Ben has worked on since his very first academic presentation on Phineas in 1979. Throughout early Judaism runs a continuous conversation with great figures of Israel’s past. In some cases, such as pseudepigraphic compositions, texts evoke famous figures as an authoritative imprimatur for the anonymous author’s own ideas. In other cases, texts uphold figures as exemplars or as representations of foundational experiences. On the one hand, existing traditions about these figures influenced the ways in which later authors formulated their

x  Preface teachings and helped readers to understand their message. Figures of the past thus influenced many early Jewish writings. On the other hand, these writings influenced the contemporary understanding of these figures. Such writings actively reshaped more than the narratives about these figures; they also remade their characters. The papers of the volume investigate how authoritative figures in the Second Temple Period and beyond contributed to forming the Scriptures of Judaism, as well as how these Scriptures shaped ideal figures as authoritative in Early Judaism. The topic of the volume thus reflects Ben’s research, who— especially with his work on Ben Sira, on the Letter of Aristeas, and on various problems of authority in Early Jewish texts—creatively contributed to the study of the formation of Scriptures, and to the understanding of the figures behind these texts. With great pleasure, we dedicate this volume to Ben as a token of our gratitude for the scholarship, mentoring, and friendship he has offered to all of us so graciously.

Greg Schmidt Goering Charlottesville, Virginia Hanukkah 5778/Advent 2017

Bibliography of Benjamin G. Wright III (1984–2017) 1 Books forthc. The Wisdom of Jesus Ben Sira. Hermeneia Commentary Series. (In preparation and under contract with Fortress Press) forthc. Sirach. SBL Commentary on the Septuagint. (In preparation) 2015 The Letter of Aristeas: ‘Aristeas to Philocrates’ or ‘On the Translation of the Law of the Jews’. Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature. Berlin: de Gruyter. [ISBN: 978-3-11-043904-5] 2008 Praise Israel for Wisdom and Instruction: Essays on Ben Sira and Wisdom, The Letter of Aristeas and the Septuagint. JSJSup 131. Leiden: Brill. [ISBN: 978-90-04-16908-1] 2007 A New English Translation of the Septuagint. Co-editor with Albert Pietersma and translator. New York: Oxford University Press. [ISBN: 978-0-19-528975-6] 2005 Conflicted Boundaries in Wisdom and Apocalypticism. Co-editor with Lawrence M. Wills and principal contributor. Symposium Series. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. [ISBN: 1-58983-184-5] 2000 The Apocryphal Ezekiel. With Michael E. Stone and David Satran. SBLEJL 18. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. [ISBN: 0-88414022-9] 1999 A Multiform Heritage: Studies on Early Judaism and Christianity in Honor of Robert A. Kraft. Editor and principal contributor. Scholars Press Homage Series 24. Atlanta: Scholars Press. [ISBN: 0-78850583-1] 1989 No Small Difference: Sirach’s Relationship to Its Hebrew Parent Text. SBLSCS 26. Atlanta: Scholars Press. [ISBN: 1-55540-374-3]

xii  Bibliography of Benjamin G. Wright III (1984–2017)

2 Articles, book chapters and other publications forthc. “Were the Jews of Qumran Hellenistic Jews?” To appear in Dead Sea Discoveries 24 (2017) forthc. “The Persian Glosses and the Text of Manuscript B Revisited.” To appear in Ben Sira Manuscripts after 120 Years. J.K. Aitken et al., eds. DCLY. Berlin: de Gruyter. forthc. “Translation, Reception, and the Historiography of Early Judaism.” To appear in “When the Morning Stars Sang”: Essays in Honor of Choon Leong Seow on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Christine Roy Yoder and Scott C. Jones, eds. BZAW 500. Berlin: de Gruyter. forthc. “The Production of Greek Books in Alexandrian Judaism.” To appear in Judaea in the Long Third Century BCE: The Transition between the Persian and Hellenistic Periods. Oded Lipschits et al., eds. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. forthc. “The Letter of Aristeas.” To appear in The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. Randall Chesnutt, ed. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell. forthc. “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Study of the Ancient World.” To appear in T & T Clark Companion to the Dead Sea Scrolls. Charlotte Hempel and George J. Brooke, eds. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. forthc. “Sirach, Introduction and Notes.” To appear in The Oxford Annotated Bible Fifth Edition. Michael Coogan, ed. New York: OUP. forthc. “Ben Sira.” To appear in Oxford Classical Dictionary Fifth Edition. Sander Goldberg, ed. Oxford: OUP. forthc. “Wisdom of Ben Sira.” To appear in T&T Clark Companion to Second Temple Judaism. Loren T. Stuckenbruck and Daniel M. Gurtner, eds. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark. forthc. “Aristeas, Letter of.” To appear in T&T Clark Companion to Second Temple Judaism. Loren T. Stuckenbruck and Daniel M. Gurtner, eds. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark. 2017a “What Does India Have to Do with Jerusalem? Ben Sira, Language, and Colonialism.” In Jewish Cultural Encounters in the Mediterranean and Near Eastern World. Mladen Popovic et al., eds. JSJSup 178. Leiden: Brill, 136–156.

Bibliography of Benjamin G. Wright III (1984–2017)  xiii

2017b

2017c

2017d

2016a

2016b

2016c

2016d

2016e

2015a 2015b 2015c

2015d

“Greek Paideia and the Jewish Community in the Letter of Aristeas.” In Second Temple Jewish Paideia in Context. Jason M. Zurawski and Gabriele Boccaccini, eds. BZNW 228. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2017, 93–112. Article in Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception. Volume 15. Kalam–Lectio Divina. Berlin: de Gruyter. Lament, Lamentation (Second Temple and Hellenistic Judaism) “Sirach 10.1–18: Some Observations on the Work of the Translator.” In Texts and Contexts of the Book of Ben Sira/Texte und Kontexte des Sirachbuches. Gerhard Karner et al., eds. SBLSCS 66. Atlanta: SBL, 163–188. “Epistole Jeremiou / Epistula Ieremiae / Brief Jeremias.” In Einleitung in die Septuaginta. Handbuch zur Septuaginta LXX.H. Band 1. Siegfried Kreuzer, ed. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 606–612. “Hellenistic Period Literature in the Land of Israel.” In The WileyBlackwell Companion to Ancient Israel. Susan Niditch, ed. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, 493–509. Articles in Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception. Volume 13. Integrity–Jesuit Order. Berlin: de Gruyter. Isaac, Testament of, 288–289 Jacob, Testament of, 609–611 Jeremiah, Additions to, 948 Jeremiah, Epistle of, 948–950 “Ben Sira and Hellenistic Literature in Greek.” In Tracing Sapiential Traditions in Ancient Judaism. Jean-Sébastien Rey et al., eds. JSJSup 174. Leiden: Brill, 71–88. “Perfecting Translation: The Greek Scriptures in Philo of Alexandria.” With Hindy Najman. In Sibyls, Scriptures, and Scrolls: John Collins at Seventy. Joel Baden et al., eds. JSJSup 175. Leiden: Brill, 897–915. “Sirach.” In The T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint. James Aitken, ed. London: T&T Clark, 410–424. “Epistle of Jeremiah.” In The T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint. James Aitken, ed. London: T&T Clark, 520–527. “‘She Undid Him with the Beauty of Her Face’ (Jdt 16.6): Reading Women’s Bodies in Early Jewish Literature” (with Suzanne M. Edwards). In Religion and the Female Body in Ancient Judaism and Its Environments. Géza G. Xeravits, ed. DCLS 28, Berlin: de Gruyter, 73– 108. Article in Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception. Volume 10. Genocide–Hakkoz. Berlin: de Gruyter. Guilt (with Sidnie Crawford), 1002–1003

xiv  Bibliography of Benjamin G. Wright III (1984–2017) 2015e

2015f

2014a

2014b

2014c

2014d

2013a

2013b

2013c

2013d

Article in Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception. Volume 11. Halah–Hizquni. Berlin: de Gruyter. Haman (with Karen Jobes), 82–83 “Cultural Creativity in Egyptian Judaism.” In A Most Reliable Witness: Essays in Honor of Ross Shepard Kraemer. Susan Ashbrook Harvey et al., eds. BJS. Providence: Brown University Press, 111–120. Articles in Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception. Volume 8. Essenes–Fideism. Berlin: de Gruyter. Eve, Second Temple and Hellenistic Judaism, 290. Exorcism, Second Temple and Hellenistic Judaism, 523. Fear of God, Second Temple and Hellenistic Judaism, 1025–1027. “Scribes, Translators and the Formation of Authoritative Scripture.” In In the Footsteps of Sherlock Holmes: Studies in the Biblical Text in Honour of Anneli Aejmelaeus. T. Michael Law et al., eds. CBET 72. Leuven: Peeters, 3–29. “Preliminary Thoughts about Preparing the Text of Ben Sira for a Commentary.” In Die Septuaginta: Text—Wirkung—Rezeption. Wolfgang Kraus and Martin Karrer, eds. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 89–109. “Hellenization and Jewish Identity in the Deuterocanonical Literature.” In Canonicity, Setting, Wisdom in the Deuterocanonicals: Papers of the Jubilee Meeting of the International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books. Géza G. Xeravits et al., eds. DCLS 22. Berlin: de Gruyter, 29–68. Article in Encyclopedia of the Bible and its Reception. Volume 6. Dabbesheth–Dreams and Dream Interpretation. Berlin: de Gruyter. Demetrius of Phalerum, 522–523 “Pseudonymous Authorship and Structures of Authority in the Letter of Aristeas.” In Scriptural Authority in Early Judaism and Ancient Christianity. Géza Xeravits et al., eds. DCLS 16. Berlin: de Gruyter, 43–62. Articles in Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception. Volume 7. Dress–Essene Gate. Berlin: de Gruyter. Edict, Second Temple and Hellenistic Judaism, 398 Egypt, Second Temple and Hellenistic Judaism, 500–502 “Torah and Sapiential Pedagogy in the Book of Ben Sira.” In Wisdom and Torah: The Reception of ‘Torah’ in the Wisdom Literature of the Second Temple Period. Bernd U. Schipper and D. Andrew Teeter, eds. JSJSup 163. Leiden: Brill, 157–186.

Bibliography of Benjamin G. Wright III (1984–2017)  xv

2013e

2013f

2013g

2012

2011a

2011b

2011c

2011d

2011e 2011f 2011g 2010a 2010b

2010c

“The Wisdom of Ben Sira.” In Outside the Bible: Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture. Louis Feldman et al., eds. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2208–2352. “Apocryphon of Ezekiel.” In Outside the Bible: Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture. Louis Feldman et al., eds. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1529–1534. “Apocryphon of Ezekiel.” In More Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Vol. 1. Richard Bauckham et al., eds. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 380– 392. “Conflicted Boundaries: Ben Sira, Sage and Seer.” In Congress Volume Helsinki 2010. Martti Nissinen, ed. VTSup 148. Leiden: Brill, 229–253. “Translation Greek in Sirach in Light of the Grandson’s Prologue.” In The Texts and Versions of the Book of Ben Sira: Transmission and Interpretation. Jan Joosten and Jean-Sébastien Rey, eds. JSJSup 150. Leiden: Brill, 75–94. “Solomon in Chronicles and Ben Sira: A Study in Contrasts.” In Rewriting Biblical History: Essays on Chronicles and Ben Sira in Honour of Pancratius C. Beentjes. Jeremy Corley and Harm van Grol, eds. DCLS 7. Berlin: de Gruyter, 139–157. “Sirach or the Wisdom of Jesus Ben Sira.” Lead Translator. The Common English Bible. Paul Franklyn, general editor. Nashville: CEB. “Biblical Interpretation in Ben Sira.” In A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism. Matthias Henze, ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 361–386. “The Letter of Aristeas and the Question of Septuagint Origins Redux.” Journal of Ancient Judaism 2 (2011) 304–326. “Sirach.” In The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Books of the Bible. Michael Coogan, ed. New York: OUP, 322–334. Review article: T. Muraoka. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Studia Philonica Annual 23 (2011) 161–169. “Noah and the Flood in the Septuagint.” In Noah and His Book(s). Michael E. Stone et al., eds. SBLEJL 28. Atlanta: SBL, 137–142. “The Wisdom of Ben Sira or Sirach.” In the New Interpreter’s Bible One Volume Commentary. David L. Petersen and Beverly R. Gaventa, eds. Nashville: Abingdon, 566–579. “The Epistle of Jeremiah: Translation or Composition?” In Deuterocanonical Additions to the Old Testament Books: Selected Studies.

xvi  Bibliography of Benjamin G. Wright III (1984–2017)

2010d 2010e

2010f

2010g

2009a

2009b

2008a

2008b

2008c

2008d

2008e

Géza G. Xeravits and József Zsengellér, eds. DCLS 5. Berlin: de Gruyter, 126–142. “Joining the Club: A Suggestion about Genre in Early Jewish Texts,” Dead Sea Discoveries 17 (2010) 289–314. “Moving Beyond Translating a Translation: Reflections on A New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS).” In “Translation Is Required”: The Septuagint in Retrospect and Prospect. Robert Hiebert, ed. SBLSCS 30. Atlanta: SBL, 23–39. “The Textual-Linguistic Character and Socio-Cultural Context of the LXX.” In “Translation Is Required”: The Septuagint in Retrospect and Prospect. Robert Hiebert, ed. SBLSCS 30. Atlanta: SBL, 235–238. Articles in Dictionary of Early Judaism. Daniel Harlow and John J. Collins, eds. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Aristeas, Letter of, 376–378. Ben Sira, Book of, 436–439. “Jubilees, Sirach and Sapiential Tradition.” In Enoch and the Mosaic Torah: The Evidence of the Book of Jubilees. Gabriele Boccaccini and Giovanni Ibba, eds. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 116–130. Article in Encyclopedia of the Bible and its Reception. Volume 2, Anim–Atheism. Berlin: de Gruyter. Aristeas, Letter of, 711–718. (CHOICE Award for Outstanding Academic Title 2010) “Ben Sira on Kings and Kingship.” In Jewish Perspectives on Hellenistic Rulers. Tessa Rajak et al., eds. Hellenistic Culture and Society. Berkeley: University of California Press, 76–91. Introduction and Notes to “Ecclesiasticus or The Wisdom of Jesus Son of Sirach.” In The Westminster Discipleship Study Bible. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press. “Transcribing, Translating, and Interpreting in the Letter of Aristeas: On the Nature of the Septuagint.” In Scripture in Transition: Essays on Septuagint, Hebrew Bible and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of Raija Sollamo. Anssi Voitila and Jutta Jokiranta, eds. JSJSup 126. Leiden: Brill, 147–161. “The Septuagint and Its Modern Translators.” In Die Septuaginta– Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten: Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 20.-23. Juli 2006. Wolfgang Kraus and Martin Karrer, eds. WUNT 219. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 103–114. “The Use and Interpretation of Biblical Tradition in Ben Sira’s Praise of the Ancestors.” Studies in the Book of Ben Sira, Papers of the Third

Bibliography of Benjamin G. Wright III (1984–2017)  xvii

2007a

2007b

2007c

2007d 2007e

2007f

2007g

2007h

2006a

International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, Shime‘on Centre, Pápa, Hungary, 18–20 May, 2006. Géza Xeravits and József Zsengellér, eds. JSJSup 127. Leiden: Brill, 183–207. “History, Fiction and the Construction of Ancient Jewish Identities: Steven Weitzman, Surviving Sacrilege: Cultural Persistence in Jewish Antiquity (Harvard University Press, 2005); Sara Raup Johnson, Historical Fictions and Hellenistic Jewish Identity: Third Maccabees in its Cultural Context (University of California Press, 2004); Carol A. Newsom, The Self as Symbolic Space: Constructing Identity and Community at Qumran (Brill, 2004).” Prooftexts 26 (2006) 449–467. “Michael Knibb and George Nickelsburg on the Structure of the Parables of Enoch.” In Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of the Parables. Gabriele Boccaccini, ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 72–78. “Three Jewish Ritual Practices in Aristeas §§158–160.” In Heavenly Tablets: Interpretation, Identity and Tradition in Ancient Judaism. Lynn LiDonnici and Andrea Lieber, eds. JSJSup 119. Leiden: Brill, 12–29. “Ezekiel, Apocryphon of.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible: Vol 2 D–H. Nashville: Abingdon, 386–387. “1 Enoch and Ben Sira: Wisdom and Apocalyptic in Relationship.” In The Early Enoch Literature. Gabriele Boccaccini and John J. Collins, eds. JSJSup 121. Leiden: Brill, 159–176. “Sirach.” Introduction and Translation in Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright, eds. A New English Translation of the Septuagint. New York: OUP, 715–762. “The Epistle of Ieremias.” Introduction and Translation in Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright, eds. A New English Translation of the Septuagint. New York: OUP, 942–945. Articles in Encyclopedia of Religious and Philosophical Writings in Late Antiquity. Jacob Neusner and Alan J. Avery-Peck, eds. Leiden: Brill. Cave of Treasures, 60. Eldad and Modad, 102. Ezekiel, Apocryphon of, 118–119. History of the Rechabites, 161. Jannes and Jambres, 183. Joseph and Aseneth, 192–193. Lives of the Prophets, 218–219. Sirach, Wisdom of Jesus Son of, 392–393. “Translation as Scripture: The Septuagint in Aristeas and Philo.” In Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek

xviii  Bibliography of Benjamin G. Wright III (1984–2017)

2006b

2006c

2006d

2006e

2006f

2005a 2005b

2005c

2005d

2005e 2005f

2004a

Jewish Scriptures. Wolfgang Kraus and R. Glenn Wooden, eds. SBLSCS 53. Atlanta: SBL, 47–61. “From Generation to Generation: The Sage as Father in Early Jewish Literature.” In Biblical Traditions in Transmission: Essays in Honour of Michael Knibb. Charlotte Hempel and Judith M. Lieu, eds. JSJSup 111. Leiden: Brill, 309–332. “Eschatology without a Messiah in the Wisdom of Ben Sira.” In The Septuagint and Messianism: Colloquium Biblicum Lovaniense, LIII, Leuven 2004. Michael A. Knibb, ed. BETL 195. Leuven: Peeters, 313– 323. Revisions to Introduction and Notes for the Wisdom of Ben Sira (Sirach) for The HarperCollins Study Bible. Harold Attridge, ed. San Francisco: HarperCollins. Revisions to Introduction and Notes for 2 Esdras for The HarperCollins Study Bible. Harold Attridge, ed. San Francisco: HarperCollins. “The Letter of Aristeas and the Reception History of the Septuagint.” Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies 39 (2006) 47–67. “Perspectives on George W. E. Nickelsburg in Perspective.” Review of Rabbinic Judaism 8 (2005) 267–274. “Ben Sira and the Book of the Watchers on the Legitimate Priesthood.” In Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit. Jeremy Corley and Vincent Skemp, eds. CBQMS 38. Washington: CBA, 241–254. “One Methodological Assumption of the Gröningen Hypothesis of Qumran Origins.” In Enoch and Qumran Origins: New Light on a Forgotten Connection. G. Boccaccini, ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 286– 290. “Some Remarks on the Parting of the Ways.” In Enoch and Qumran Origins: New Light on a Forgotten Connection. G. Boccaccini, ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 394–400. “Introduction.” With Lawrence Wills. In Conflicted Boundaries in Wisdom and Apocalypticism. Symposium Series. Atlanta: SBL, 1–14. “Putting the Puzzle Together: Some Suggestions Concerning the Social Location of the Wisdom of Ben Sira.” In Conflicted Boundaries in Wisdom and Apocalypticism. Symposium Series. Atlanta: SBL, 89–112 (Revised version of 1996a). “The Categories of Rich and Poor in the Qumran Sapiential Literature.” In Sapiential Perspectives: Wisdom Literature in Light of the

Bibliography of Benjamin G. Wright III (1984–2017)  xix

2004b 2004c

2003a

2003b 2002a

2002b

2002c

2001a

2001b

2001c

2000a

Dead Sea Scrolls. John J. Collins et al., eds. STDJ 51. Leiden: Brill, 101–123. “Wisdom and Women at Qumran.” Dead Sea Discoveries 11 (2004) 240–261. “Wisdom, Instruction and Social Location in Ben Sira and 1 Enoch.” In Things Revealed: Studies in Early Jewish and Christian Literature in Honor of Michael E. Stone. Esther G. Chazon et al., eds. JSJSup 89. Leiden: Brill, 105–121. “Why a Prologue? Ben Sira’s Grandson and His Translation.” In Shalom Paul et al., eds. Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov. VTSup 72. Leiden: Brill, 633–644. “Access to the Source: Cicero, Ben Sira, the Septuagint and Their Audiences.” Journal for the Study of Judaism 34 (2003) 1–27. “The Jewish Scriptures in Greek: The Septuagint in the Context of Ancient Translation Activity.” In Biblical Translation in Context. Frederick W. Knobloch, ed. Studies and Texts in Jewish History and Culture 10. Bethesda: University of Maryland Press, 3–18. “‘Who Has Been Tested by Gold and Found Perfect?’ Ben Sira’s Discourse of Riches and Poverty.” With Claudia V. Camp. Henoch 23 (2001) 153–174. “Sirach and 1 Enoch: Some Further Considerations.” In The Origins of Enochic Judaism: Proceedings of the First Enoch Seminar. Gabriele Boccaccini, ed. Turin: Silvio Zamorani, 179–187. “Ebed/Doulos: Terms and Social Status in the Meeting of HebrewBiblical and Hellenistic-Roman Culture.” In Slavery in Text and Interpretation. Semeia 83/84. Richard Horsley et al., eds. Atlanta: SBL, 83–111. “Heaven—A Place of Revelation and Discovery.” In Who Killed Goliath? Reading the Bible with Heart and Mind. Deborah Spink and Robert Shedinger, eds. Valley Forge: Judson Press, 51–68. “Coptic/Sahidic Fragments of the Biblical Psalms in the University of Pennsylvania Museum.” With Robert A. Kraft. In The Old Greek Psalter: Studies in Honour of Albert Pietersma. Robert J. V. Hiebert et al., eds. JSOTSup 332. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 163–177. Articles in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam, eds. New York: OUP. Ben Sira, Book of, 1:91–92. Early Christian Writings, 1:223–225

xx  Bibliography of Benjamin G. Wright III (1984–2017) 2000b “The Apocryphon of Ezekiel and 4QPseudo-Ezekiel.” In The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years After Their Discovery 1947–1997. Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–26, 1997. Lawrence H. Schiffman et al., eds. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society in cooperation with the Shrine of the Book, Israel Museum, 462–480. 2000c “Notes on 4Q391 (papPseudo-Ezekiele) and Biblical Ezekiel.” In For a Later Generation: The Transformation of Tradition in Israel, Early Judaism and Early Christianity. Randal Argall et al., eds. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 289–298. 1999a “Christ Returns as the Church Gets Ready: King of Kings and Lord of Lords.” In Wonders to Behold: The Visionary Art of Myrtice West. Carol Crown, ed. Nashville: Mustang Publishing, 122–126. 1999b “Computer Assisted Study of the Criteria for Assessing the Literalness of Translation Units in the LXX.” With Emanuel Tov. In The Greek & Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint. Emanuel Tov. VTSup 72. Leiden: Brill, 219–237 [Revised and updated form of 1985b]. 1999c “‘Put the Nations in Fear of You:’ Ben Sira and the Problem of Foreign Rule.” Seminar Papers: Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting 1999. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 77–93. 1999d “Introduction: Robert A. Kraft—An Appreciation.” In A Multiform Heritage: Studies on Early Judaism and Christianity in Honor of Robert A. Kraft. Benjamin G. Wright, ed. Scholars Press Homage Series 24. Atlanta: Scholars Press, xv–xxiv. 1999e “A Coptic Gospel of John in the University of Pennsylvania Museum.” With James N. Hubler. In A Multiform Heritage: Studies on Early Judaism and Christianity in Honor of Robert A. Kraft. Benjamin G. Wright, ed. Scholars Press Homage Series 24. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 245–262. 1999f “B. Sanhedrin 100b and Rabbinic Knowledge of Ben Sira.” In Treasures of Wisdom. Studies in Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom. Festschrift M. Gilbert. N. Calduch-Benages and J. Vermeylen, eds. BETL 143. Leuven: Peeters, 41–50. 1999g “Qumran Pseudepigrapha and Early Christianity: Is 1 Clement 50:4 a Citation of 4QPseudo-Ezekiel (4Q385 12)?” In Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Michael E. Stone and Esther G. Chazon, eds. STDJ 31. Leiden: Brill, 183–193.

Bibliography of Benjamin G. Wright III (1984–2017)  xxi

1998a

1998b

1997a

1997b

1997c

1996a

1996b

1994a

1994b 1987

“Talking with God and Losing his Head: Extra-biblical Traditions about the Prophet Ezekiel.” In Biblical Figures Outside the Bible. Michael E. Stone and Theodore Bergren, eds. Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 290–315. [Winner of 1999 Biblical Archaeology Society Publication Award: Best Popular Book Relating to the Old Testament] “The Discourse of Riches and Poverty in the Book of Ben Sira.” Seminar Papers: Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting 1998. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 559–578. “δοῦλος and παῖς as Translations of ‫עבד‬: Lexical Equivalences and Conceptual Transformations.” In Proceedings of the IXth Congress of the IOSCS, Cambridge, England. Bernard Taylor, ed. SBLSCS 45. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 263–277. “Fear the Lord and Honor the Priest: Ben Sira as Defender of the Jerusalem Priesthood.” In The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research. P. C. Beentjes, ed. BZAW 255. Berlin: de Gruyter, 189–222. “Jewish Ritual Baths—Interpreting the Digs and the Texts: Some Problems in the Social Reconstruction of Second Temple Judaism.” In The Archaeology of Israel—Constructing the Past, Interpreting the Present. Neil Asher Silverman and David Small, eds. JSOTSup 237. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 190–214. “Putting the Puzzle Together: Some Suggestions Concerning the Social Location of the Wisdom of Ben Sira.” SBL Seminar Papers1996. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 133–149. Articles in The Dictionary of Judaism in the Biblical Period. Jacob Neusner and William Scott Green, eds. New York: Simon and Schuster Macmillan. Ezekiel, Apocryphon of, 1:218. Exodus, 1:216. gird one’s loins, 1:251. horn, 1:301. I Am, 1:306–307. Shalom, 2:574. tent, 2:628 “Jerome’s Translation of Origen’s Homily on Jeremiah 2.21–22 (Greek Homily 2; Latin 13).” With Theodore Bergren and Robert A. Kraft. Revue Benedictine 104 (1994) 260–283. “A Greek Fragment of the Books of Samuel: Beinecke Library MS 544 (Ra 846).” Textus 17 (1994) 79– 100. “The Quantitative Representation of Elements: Evaluating ‘Literalism’ in the LXX.” In VI Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies—Jerusalem 1986. Claude E. Cox, ed. SBLSCS 23. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 311–335.

xxii  Bibliography of Benjamin G. Wright III (1984–2017) 1986a 1986b 1985a 1985b

1984

“Ben Sira 43.11b—‘To What Does the Greek Correspond?’” Textus 13 (1986) 111–116. “A Previously Unnoticed Greek Variant to Matt. 16.14—‘Some Say John the Baptist…’” Journal of Biblical Literature 105 (1986) 694–697. “A Note on the Statistical Analysis of Septuagintal Syntax.” Journal of Biblical Literature 104 (1985) 111–114. “Computer Assisted Study of the Criteria for Assessing the Literalness of Translation Units in the LXX.” With Emanuel Tov. Textus 12 (1985) 149–187. “Cerinthus apud Hippolytus: An Inquiry into the Traditions about Cerinthus’ Provenance.” The Second Century 4 (1984) 103–115.

3 Reviews and book notes 2015a

Bradley C. Gregory. Like an Everlasting Signet Ring: Generosity in the Book of Sirach. In Dead Sea Discoveries 22 (2015) 240–242. 2014a Marko Marttila. Foreign Nations in the Wisdom of Ben Sira: A Jewish Sage between Opposition and Assimilation. In Journal for the Study of Judaism 45 (2014) 419–421. 2014b William Loader. The Pseudepigrapha on Sexuality. In Journal of Religion 94 (2014) 108–109. 2013 Frank Ueberschaer. Weisheit aus der Begegnung. Bildung nach dem Buch Ben Sira. In Journal for the Study of Judaism 44 (2013) 443–444. 2012a Wolfgang Kraus and Martin Karrer with Martin Meiser, eds. Die Septuaginta—Texte, Theologien, Einfüsse: 2. Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 23.– 27.7.2008. In Catholic Biblical Quarterly 74 (2012) 188–190. 2012b Michael Lieb et al. The Oxford Handbook of the Reception History of the Bible. In The Journal of Near Eastern Archaeology 74 (2012) 253– 255. 2011 Seth Schwartz. Were the Jews a Mediterranean Society? Reciprocity and Solidarity in Ancient Judaism. In Journal of Jewish Studies 62 (2011) 388–391. 2009a Leo G. Perdue. The Sword and the Stylus: An Introduction to Wisdom in the Age of Empires. In Review of Biblical Literature. 2009b Samuel L. Adams. Wisdom in Transition. Act and Consequence in Second Temple Instructions. In Journal for the Study of Judaism 40 (2009) 366–367.

Bibliography of Benjamin G. Wright III (1984–2017)  xxiii

2009c

2008a

2007a 2007b

2006a 2006b 2006c 2006d 2005a 2005b

2005c 2004a

2004b 2003

2002a 2002b

Angelo Passaro and Giuseppe Bellia, The Wisdom of Ben Sira: Studies on Translation, Redaction, and Theology. In Catholic Biblical Quarterly 71 (2009) 925–927. Abraham Wasserstein and David J. Wasserstein. The Legend of the Septuagint: From Classical Antiquity until Today. In BIOSCS 41 (2008) 147–148. David R. Jackson. Enochic Judaism: Three Defining Paradigm Exemplars. In Biblica 87 (2006) 577–580. Pancratius Beentjes. “Happy the One who Meditates on Wisdom” (Sir. 14,20): Collected Essays on the Book of Ben Sira. In Review of Biblical Literature. Jonas C. Greenfield et al. The Aramaic Levi Document: Edition, Translation, Commentary. In Religious Studies Review 32 (2006) 37. George W. E. Nickelsburg, Ancient Judaism and Christian Origins. In Journal for the Study of Judaism 37 (2006) 137–140. Detlef Frankel, Verzeichnis der griechischen Handschriften des alten Testaments. In Journal for the Study of Judaism 37 (2006) 483–485. Jean-Marie Auwers, Concordance de Siracide (grec II et sacra parallela). In BIOSCS 38 (2005) 149–150. Adrian Schenker, The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible. In Catholic Biblical Quarterly 67 (2005) 376–378. Matthew J. Goff, The Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom of 4QInstruction. In Journal of Biblical Literature 124 (2005) 548–553 (also posted on Review of Biblical Literature). J. Edward Wright, Baruch Ben Neriah: From Biblical Scribe to Apocalyptic Seer. In AJS Review 29 (2005) 361–362. Accordance Scholar’s Collection 4. Version 5.6.1. Qumran Module. Macintosh Version. Oak Tree Software. In Dead Sea Discoveries 11 (2004) 373–377. R. Timothy McLay, The Use of the Septuagint in New Testament Research. In Catholic Biblical Quarterly 66 (2004) 324–325. Cécile Dogniez and Marguerite Harl, eds. La Bible des Septante: Le Pentateuque d’Alexandrie. In Catholic Biblical Quarterly 65 (2003) 142–143. Renate Egger-Wenzel and Ingrid Krammer, eds. Der Einzelne und Seine Gemeinschaft bei Ben Sira. In Review of Biblical Literature. James C. VanderKam, An Introduction to Early Judaism. In Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 326 (2002) 98–100.

xxiv  Bibliography of Benjamin G. Wright III (1984–2017) 2002c 2001a 2001b 2001c

2000

1999a 1999b 1998a 1998b

1998c

1998d 1997 1996 1995a

1995b 1995c

Devorah Dimant, Parabiblical Texts, Part 4: Pseudo-prophetic Texts. In Dead Sea Discoveries 9 (2002) 249–253. Christian Wagner, Die Septuaginta-Hapaxlegomena im Buch Jesus Sirach. In Jewish Quarterly Review 92 (2000) 280–283. John William Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Numbers. In Jewish Quarterly Review 91 (2000) 284–285. William M. Schniedewind, Society and the Promise to David: The Reception History of 2 Samuel 7:1–17. In Hebrew Studies 42 (2001) 343–346. Emanuel Tov, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research. Revised and Enlarged Second Edition. In Catholic Biblical Quarterly 62 (2000) 344–345. Samuel Cheon. The Exodus Story in the Wisdom of Solomon. In Jewish Quarterly Review 89 (1999) 470–472. Reidar Hvalvik, The Struggle for Scripture and Covenant. In Shofar 17 (1999) 139–141. T. Muraoka and J. F. Elwolde, eds. The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls & Ben Sira. In Religious Studies Review 24 (1998) 318. Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer, Die Septuaginta zwischen Judentum and Christentum. In Catholic Biblical Quarterly 60 (1998) 185–186. Elisha Qimron, The Temple Scroll: A Critical Edition with Extensive Reconstructions. In Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 309 (1998) 85–87. John Ifeanyichukwu Okoye, Speech in Ben Sira with Special Reference to 5,9–6,1. In Religious Studies Review 24 (1998) 116. James R. Mueller, The Five Fragments of the Apocryphon of Ezekiel: A Critical Study. In Ioudaios Review 7.007 (September 1997). Cécile Dogniez, Bibiography of the Septuagint/Bibliographie de la Septante. In Religious Studies Review 22 (1996) 350. John Jarick, ed. A Comprehensive Bilingual Concordance of the Hebrew and Greek Texts of Ecclesiastes. In Catholic Biblical Quarterly 57 (1995) 347–348. E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus. In Ioudaios Review 5.004 (March 1995). Gerard J. Norton and Stephen Pisano, eds. Tradition of the Text: Studies Offered to Dominique Barthélemy in Celebration of his 70th Birthday. In Religious Studies Review 21 (1995) 158.

Bibliography of Benjamin G. Wright III (1984–2017)  xxv

1994

Robert M. Grant, Heresy and Criticism: The Search for Authenticity in Early Christian Literature. In Ioudaios Review 4.002 (January 1994). 1993a Steffan Olofsson, God is My Rock: A Study of Translation Technique and Theological Exegesis in the Septuagint. In Catholic Biblical Quarterly 55 (1993) 126–127. 1993b John H. Sailhamer, The Translation Technique of the Greek Septuagint for the Hebrew Verbs and Participles in Psalms 3–41. In Catholic Biblical Quarterly 55 (1993) 770–771. 1993c Hershel Shanks and Dan P. Cole, eds. Archaeology and the Bible: The Best of BAR. Vol. 1, Early Israel; Vol. 2, Archaeology and the Worlds of Herod, Jesus and Paul. In Religious Studies Review 19 (1993) 174. 1993d Michael E. Stone, Fourth-Ezra: A Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra. In AJS Review 18 (1993) 129–132. 1992a Theodore A. Bergren, Fifth Ezra: The Text, Origin and Early History. In Journal of Biblical Literature 111 (1992) 336–338. 1992b John William Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus. In Catholic Biblical Quarterly 54 (1992) 339–341. 1992c Shamaryahu Talmon, ed. Jewish Civilization in the HellenisticRoman Period. In Ioudaios Review 2.010 (April 1992). 1992d Steven F. Derfler, The Hasmonean Revolt: Rebellion or Revolution? In Ioudaios Review 2.003 (March 1992). 1991 Friedrich Rehkopf, Septuaginta-Vokabular. In Catholic Biblical Quarterly 53 (1991) 480–481. 1990a Milward Douglas Nelson, The Syriac Version of the Wisdom of Ben Sira Compared to the Greek and Hebrew Materials. In Journal of Biblical Literature 109 (1990) 720–721. 1990b Thomas R. Lee, Studies in the Form of Sirach 44–50. In Jewish Quarterly Review 80 (1989–1990) 203–205. 1990c T. Muraoka, A Greek-Hebrew/Aramaic Index to 1 Esdras. In Jewish Quarterly Review 80 (1989–1990) 436–437. 1990d John Barton, Oracles of God: Perceptions on Ancient Prophecy in Israel After the Exile. In Religious Studies Review 16 (1990) 271. 1989 Richard A. Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral of Violence: Popular Jewish Resistance in Roman Palestine. In Theology Today 45 (1988–1989) 499–501. 1988 Leslie John McGgregor, The Greek Text of Ezekiel: An Examination of Its Homogeneity. In Religious Studies Review 14 (1988) 166–167.

xxvi  Bibliography of Benjamin G. Wright III (1984–2017) 1986 1984

Louis Stulman, The Other Text of Jeremiah. In Hebrew Studies 27 (1986) 142–143. Friedrich V. Reiterer, “Urtext” and Übersetzungen: Sprachstudie über Sir 44,16–45,26 als Beitrag zur Siraforschung. In Jewish Quarterly Review 75 (1984) 182–185.

4 Electronic publication 1990

1987a 1987b

“Some Methodological Considerations of the Rabbis’ Knowledge of the Proverbs of Ben Sira.” (fttp://ftp.lehigh.edu/pub/listserv/ioudaios-l/Articles/bwsira) “The Hebrew-Greek Parallel Alignment of the Wisdom of Ben Sira.” In PHI Demonstration CDROM #1. Packard Humanities Institute. “The Greek-Latin Parallel Text of Origen’s Homily on Jer 2.21ff and Jerome’s Latin Translation.” With Robert Kraft and Theodore Bergren. In PHI Demonstration CDROM #1. Packard Humanities Institute.



Part 1: Figures

Emanuel Tov

Moses in the Septuagint Abstract: This study examines the special status of Moses in the LXX. We attempt to examine whether the translators of the various books in which he appears portray him in a different way from the Moses of the Hebrew Bible. Only if the Greek Moses was different from the Hebrew Moses would we have some information about Moses in the LXX. When examining various postbiblical compositions in which Moses is mentioned, the expectations of finding relevant material in the LXX are high, as many traditions not found in the MT of the Torah found their way into these sources. However, in spite of these great expectations, the source of Philo, Ezekiel the Tragedian, and Josephus, namely the LXX translation itself, has little interest in exegetical traditions regarding Moses. The results of my investigation are thus rather negative, but this by itself is a remarkable phenomenon. The Greek books of the Torah reflect unmistakable contextual, theological, and legal exegesis, while on the other hand the figure of Moses was not the focus of their interest. This is the case also for the other biblical figures so far as I have been able to see; thus, this paper is a study in method. We do find a few exegetical details in the stories about Moses, but these are the exception rather than the rule. These details are analyzed in this paper together with a few remarks on the characterization of Moses. Keywords: Moses, Septuagint, theology, exegesis, Exodus 2, Exodus 24, infancy story of Moses

1 Background Moses appears in most books of the Hebrew and Greek Bibles starting with the story of his birth in Exodus 2, and is seen most frequently in Exodus and Numbers. ‫ משה‬is mentioned 767 times in the Hebrew Bible while, in the LXX, Moses appears 792 times, mainly as Μωυσῆς, but also as Μωσῆ (Dan 9:10, 11, 13). 1 The plus occurrences of Μωυσῆς in the LXX are spread evenly throughout the books 0F

 This study is dedicated to Ben Wright, a dear friend and highly esteemed colleague, who sings “Go down, Moses” with more musical and exegetical understanding than anyone else. 1 Data based on Accordance, BHS module.

https://doi.org/10.1515/ 9783110596373-001

4  Emanuel Tov of the LXX, 2 but the analysis of these data is complicated by the fact that the LXX occasionally lacks the name. It is the purpose of this study to examine the special status of Moses in the LXX. We wish to examine whether the translators of the various books in which he appears portray him in a different way from the Moses of the Hebrew Bible. Did Moses undergo certain changes in the translation in any direction? For example, Solomon of the LXX of 1 Kings (3 Reigns) differs from the character we know from the Masoretic Text (MT). Chapters 2, 5, and 11 in the LXX emphasize Solomon’s wisdom in order to enhance his personality, and his sins are presented as being less offensive. 3 Only if the Greek Moses were to be different from the Hebrew Moses would we have some information about Moses in the LXX. This point should be stressed strongly, for otherwise we would not be analyzing the Moses of the LXX but a Greek version of the Hebrew Moses. On the other hand, several scholars have scrutinized the LXX of the Torah in order to sketch a picture of Moses or other biblical figures even when the data in the LXX were compatible with those of the Hebrew Bible. Thus, William Horbury deals extensively with “A ruling prophet like Moses” and with “the Profile of Moses” 4 in an otherwise valuable discussion about the Greek shape of these traditions, although usually the text is shared by the MT and LXX. Such a type of analysis would be more significant for the study of the reception of the LXX with which we are not involved here. We wish to study the level of the initial exegesis by the Old Greek translators. The same problem pertains to similar analyses of other Septuagintal traditions. The discussion of “biblical women” by Jennifer M. Dines provides philological details comparing the MT and LXX, but in most cases the two texts agree. 5 In yet other cases, some scholars state explicitly that they are not interested in the comparative study of MT and LXX when studying biblical figures, but that they are studying the content of the LXX as part of a study of biblical traditions, without turning to the background of the renderings. This system is also employed in a very detailed study by Joseph L. McDonald of Sarah in the LXX. 6 For example, Sarah is depicted in completely different

 2 Especially in Exodus (MT 290, LXX 297), Leviticus (MT 86, LXX 98), Numbers (MT 233, LXX 238). 3 See TALSHIR, 1 Kings and 3 Kingdoms, 71–105. 4 HORBURY, Monarchy and Messianism in the Greek Pentateuch, 79–128 (110–115, 115–117). 5 DINES, What if the Reader is a She?, 56–82. This pertains also to the study of Stefan Schorch in spite of its challenging name: SCHORCH, Hellenizing Women, 3–16. 6 MCDONALD, Searching.

Moses in the Septuagint  5

ways in the MT and LXX of Gen 18:12, 7 and McDonald focuses on the differences in outlook between the two texts, which are the basis for fundamentally different pictures of Sarah. The two texts react in a completely different way towards the possibility of intercourse. Sarah’s anticipated joy according to MT contrasts sharply with the lack of such anticipation in the LXX with its incredulity at the possibility of her pleasure in intercourse. 8 However, these considerations are of interest mainly for the reception history of the MT and LXX, because the translator himself presumably did not harbor these thoughts. His translation resulted from linguistic problems that he experienced at the beginning of the translation enterprise; more specifically, the translator was driven by his ignorance of two difficult Hebrew words that he rendered incorrectly. 9 As a result, this verse will not be included in my own analysis of the figure of Sarah in the LXX since I ascribe the difference between the two texts to the translator’s ignorance of two rare and difficult Hebrew words. In other words, in my view, this verse is not instructive of the translator’s views about Sarah. I illustrated my view by referring to Sarah since scholars have written more about her than about Moses. Moses belongs to the group of biblical figures in the Torah and we wish to investigate whether the different translators of the Torah (and of Scripture as a whole) displayed any inclination to embellish this figure in any way or to embed exegesis of the figure of Moses in the stories about him, in short not to translate the biblical stories in a literal fashion. We focus on the Torah, and thus deal with three different translators, those of Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, and to some extent also the translator of Leviticus. 10 At the same time, we also scrutinize the other books in which Moses is mentioned. When examining various postbiblical compositions in which Moses is mentioned, the expectations of finding relevant material in the LXX are high, as 9F

 7 Gen 18:12 MT ‫ותצחק שׂרה בקרבה לאמר אחרי בּלתי היתה־לי עדנה ואדני זקן‬, “And Sarah laughed to herself, saying, ‘Now that I am withered, am I to have enjoyment—with my husband so old?’” (JPS). LXX ἐγέλασεν δὲ Σαρρα ἐν ἑαυτῇ λέγουσα Οὔπω μέν μοι γέγονεν ἕως τοῦ νῦν, ὁ δὲ κύριός μου πρεσβύτερος, “And Sarah laughed within herself, saying: ‘it has not yet happened to me up to the present, and my lord is rather old.’” 8 Thus MCDONALD, Searching, 220. 9 The root ‫ בלה‬is not rare, but this is the first time it occurs in the Torah, while the preposition ‫ ִבּלְתִּ י‬occurs eight times in the Torah. Further, ‫ עֶדְ נָה‬is a hapax, and the translator did not know what to do with that word, reading it as ‫עַד־ ֵהנָּה = ַעדֵ נָּה‬, “until now.” That this was indeed the case is most likely since the Hebrew phrase was rendered in this way just a few chapters earlier (15:16) and would be rendered in this way again in Num 14:19; Judg 16:13; 1 Sam 1:16. 10 See the arguments provided by KIM, Multiple Authorship for the assumption that each of the books of the Torah was translated by a different translator.

6  Emanuel Tov many traditions not found in the MT of the Torah found their way into these sources. Moses is a colorful person in the midrash and the targumim as well as in the Jewish-Hellenistic literature that is based on the LXX, in Philo, 11 Ezekiel the Tragedian, and Josephus. Josephus did not single out the figure of Moses, as he adorned all biblical figures with a rich layer of exegesis, as well analyzed by Louis Feldman. 12 That study includes his analysis of the Moses figure in Josephus, 13 especially his character and the qualities of his leadership. However, in spite of these great expectations, the source of Philo, Ezekiel the Tragedian, and Josephus, namely the LXX itself, has little interest in exegetical traditions about Moses. The first sign of the lack of such exegetical traditions in the LXX is found in a research tool that should be one’s first step in locating exegesis, especially theology in the LXX, namely the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. 14 The TDNT is very outspoken in its description of the theological background of all Septuagintal and New Testament words that are not necessary theological, but one or more of its uses has theological overtones (e.g., παῖς or δοῦλος). At the same time, it does not refer at all to any of the persons mentioned in the LXX, neither Moses, 15 nor Abraham, Joseph, Aaron, Israel, Jerusalem, or any of the central names in that translation. All these names are covered by the lexicon, but their description starts with their background in the rabbinic period or the New Testament. The editorial decision not to cover the Scripture background of these figures in the Hebrew and Greek Bibles is unusual within this lexicon, which supplies a great amount of background information, and I do not know why it was taken. 16

 11 See in great detail the masterly treatment of Moses’s life and virtues in the writings of Philo in FELDMAN, Philo’s Portrayal of Moses. 12 Louis H. Feldman wrote a long series of insightful studies on Josephus’s treatment of biblical figures such as Abraham, Joseph, and Esther, which are combined in his large monographic study: FELDMAN, Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible. 13 Preliminary publications: FELDMAN, Josephus’ Portrait of Moses. Part One; Josephus’ Portrait of Moses. Part Two; Josephus’ Portrait of Moses. Part Three. 14 KITTEL/FRIEDRICH (eds.), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. 15 Volume IV (1967), 848–873. 16 Even if we find that the traditions about Moses do not differ much from MT, they do differ slightly, and TDNT should have paid attention to some of the biblical figures.

Moses in the Septuagint  7

2 Moses in the LXX The topic of this study is the question regarding whether the Greek translation reflects any specific exegetical or theological traditions about Moses. Septuagintal traditions about Moses, if found, would border between being exegetical and theological in nature because of the special nature of Moses. Moses is an almost superhuman figure, since he is the only person “whom the Lord knew face to face” (Deut 34:10). In the same verse, he is named a prophet and elsewhere he transmits the divine laws, and these facts alone suffice to engender exegetical traditions about Moses. First some words about theology. Every translation of the Bible, or of any work dealing with one or more deities, is bound to contain theologically motivated exegesis. Almost any individual translation option is potentially a carrier of theologically motivated exegesis due to the central place of the Hebrew Bible in the religions based on it. It is, in fact, difficult to imagine a biblical translation without theological exegesis. As with all other biblical versions, the LXX reflects theological exegesis, but to a lesser degree than the Aramaic targumim. Theological exegesis reflects but one aspect of the general area of exegesis, and it cannot be separated easily from the translators’ approach towards exegesis. The Greek form of some books does not reflect a systematic theological system, but individual theologoumena. Therefore, one should not isolate theological exegesis from other aspects of the translation. 17 Theological exegesis of the LXX may be defined as any theological element added to the source text by the translation. 18 A similar definition also applies to other forms of exegesis. The analysis of the special traditions regarding Moses in the LXX is based on a meticulous reading of the text, especially in the Torah, compared with MT and other traditions. We exclude from the analysis elements that the LXX shares with MT. The results of my investigation are thus rather negative, but this in itself is a remarkable phenomenon. The Greek books of the Torah reflect unmistakable contextual, theological, and legal exegesis, 19 while on the other hand the figure of Moses was not the focus of their interest. For example, theological exegesis is very clearly visible in Exodus, and the sensitivity of the translator pertains espe 17 For my own views, see: TOV, Theologically Motivated Exegesis, 215–233. Revised version: TOV, Greek and Hebrew Bible, 257–269. 18 For a recent analysis of the problems, see DOUGLAS, Limitations to Writing a Theology of the Septuagint, with much bibliography. 19 See, for example, FRITSCH, Anti-anthropomorphisms, and the studies quoted in n. 22.

8  Emanuel Tov cially to the depiction of God, the seeing of God, and occasionally the avoidance of anthropomorphic and/or potentially harmful actions of God (24:11). 20 At a different level, the translators were sensitive to the nature of Jewish equivalents of certain terms, 21 and the legal sections, especially Exodus 21–23, display midrashic exegesis; 22 however, the translators were not sensitive to the depiction of the figure of Moses: they could have extolled him beyond the text of the Hebrew Bible, have added exegetical traditions about him, and have been more sensitive about certain aspects of Moses at the theological level. This is the case also for other biblical figures such as Abraham, Joseph, and Aaron, so far as I was able to see. 23 This paper thus is a study of method. We do find a few exegetical features in the stories about Moses, such as those analyzed below, but they are the exception rather than the rule. For this purpose, we have to examine thoroughly the Torah stories of three individual books, Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, each book rendered by a different translator and therefore potentially presenting a different picture. 24 Within this investigation, we examine: (1) the infancy story of Moses (Exod 2:1–10) in which the LXX embellished the picture with various details; (2) one of the several stories of Moses’ ascent to Mount Sinai (Exodus 24), a story in which the modern reader experiences literary difficulties, a few of which the translator managed to resolve resourcefully; (3) other remarkable renderings. We conclude with a few remarks about the characterization of Moses.

2.1 The Infancy Story of Moses (Exod 2:1–10) Probably more than other stories in the LXX, the Greek story of Moses’ infancy shows that the Greek translator was greatly involved in presenting the narrative

 20 See especially Exod 4:24; 19:3; 24:9–11, 16 and the recent paper by WYCKOFF, When Does Translation Become Exegesis?, and the literature mentioned there. 21 See my study: TOV, Studies in the Vocabulary of the Septuagint. 22 See especially FRANKEL, Über den Einfluss; PRIJS, Jüdische Tradition; TEETER, Scribal Laws. 23 This statement refers mainly to the Torah. In the later books, there was much interest in Solomon in 3 Reigns (1 Kings), as mentioned above, but in my view the changes in the Greek translation go back to the different Hebrew Vorlage of the translation. See my study: TOV, Three Strange Books. 24 See the arguments provided by KIM, Multiple Authorship.

Moses in the Septuagint  9

almost like a storyteller. 25 In the following analysis, we pay attention to nine changes made by the translator that show his refined literary understanding, while they do not indicate a focus on the figure of Moses. a. The Greek translator pays attention to the details of the dramatis personae. In the beginning of the story (2:1), the Hebrew text says ‫וילך איש מבית לוי ויקח‬ ‫“( את בת לוי‬A man from the household of Levi took/married a daughter of Levi”) while the Greek provides a more general description: Ἦν δέ τις ἐκ τῆς φυλῆς Λευι, ὃς ἔλαβεν τῶν θυγατέρων Λευι (“There was someone from the tribe of Levi who took one of the daughters of Levi”). MT’s description of Moses’ choice of a wife is thus more detailed, referring to a single daughter of Levi, while according to the LXX Moses chose one of several daughters of Levi. 26 The Greek rendering creates the impression of being an exegetical tradition based on MT, and not of a translation of a variant ‫ויקח אחת מבנות לוי‬, because the translator did not offer a text such as μίαν τῶν θυγατέρων Λευι. b. Moses, in addition to his wife, belongs to a larger unit. He is not part of the house of Levi as in MT (‫)מבית לוי‬, but is part of a larger unit, the “family” or “tribe” of Levi (ἐκ τῆς φυλῆς Λευι), as expressed by the word φυλή. c. According to MT, Moses “took” the daughter with the sense of “marrying” (thus JPS) since the next verse states that she became pregnant and bore a child. 27 The plus of the LXX, καὶ ἔσχεν αὐτήν (“and married her”), should be seen as exegetical, based probably on a variant ‫וישאה‬. 28 Someone added this verb thinking that ‫ ויקח‬is not a sufficiently clear indication of the close relation between the parents of Moses. d. In the continuation, we see the translator in action in various small details. In v. 2, Moses’ mother gave birth to a “boy” according to MT, but to a

 25 This view was first suggested by UTZSCHNEIDER, Die Septuaginta. Utzschneider’s major argument is the representation by the LXX of the Hebrew verb, in particular the wayyiqtol form, with a variety of renderings and, according to him, these different presentations show the translator’s active involvement in transferring the various nuances of the story. Utzschneider also demonstrates that the story is more easily understood in its Greek form than in its Hebrew shape, not only by way of the improvement of the story with these verbal forms, but also due to the addition of several small particles (p. 468). 26 The translation of JPS, “and married a Levite woman,” is a compromise between the two traditions. 27 Also elsewhere, ‫ לקח‬without further detail is used as “to marry,” as in Gen 34:16 ‫ואת בנתיכם נקח‬ ‫לנו‬. 28 Same equivalent as in Deut 24:15. Another possibility, albeit less likely, is ‫( וישכב עמה‬as in Deut 28:30; suggestion of Nathan Evron, Hebrew University). ‫ וישאה‬could also have been a doublet to ‫ויקח‬.

10  Emanuel Tov “male” according to the LXX. This equivalent follows the example of 1:16, 22, also with regard to the girl (‫ )הבת‬likewise rendered as “female” (θῆλυ) in 1:22. e. In the LXX, the mother is not alone in taking care of the infant Moses, as certain verbs have been changed from singular to plural. These changes have been made very carefully; certain actions have been changed from singular to plural, while others have not been changed. In vv. 2–3, the changes pertain to ‫( ותרא‬ἰδόντες δέ), ‫( ותצפנהו‬ἐσκέπασαν αὐτό), ‫( יכלה‬ἠδύναντο), but not to the other actions in which the mother acted alone: ‫ותשם‬, ‫ותחמרה‬, ‫ותקח‬. The mother, together with another person, decided on the main actions, but the clandestine action of placing the infant in the reeds was planned only by the mother. The text does not reveal who the additional person is, but as these actions must have taken place in the house of Moses’ mother, it is likely that the father was also involved. 29 According to MT, she saw that he was “handsome,” but in the LXX the verb is in the plural (“when they saw”), indicating that the father was also involved in the hiding of the infant. Instead of “When she could hide him no longer” (MT), the LXX reads “When they could hide him no longer.” 30 Subsequently the mother acted alone, placing the little box in the marsh. f. The translator further improved the story in v. 4. In MT, Moses’ sister stationed herself from afar, ‫ותתצב אחתו מרחק‬, but in the LXX she had a more active task: καὶ κατεσκόπευεν ἡ ἀδελφὴ αὐτοῦ μακρόθεν (“his sister was watching from a distance”). In my view, the translator based his translation on a phonetic interchange of the cluster ‫ צב‬with ‫צפ‬. 31 g. In the continuation of that verse, the translator’s exegesis may well be more consistent in its equivalents than that in MT: Pharaoh’s daughter came to bathe in the Nile while her maidens (‫ )ונערתיה‬were walking along the riverside (2:5). When she saw the basket, she sent her maidservant (‫ )אמתה‬to fetch the basket. According to MT, the maidservant, as her personal assistant, was probably in the water with Pharaoh’s daughter. However, in the LXX, the per28F

30F

 29 Thus also Heb 11:23: “By faith Moses was hidden by his parents for three months after his birth because they saw that the child was beautiful” (πίστει Μωσῆς γεννηθεὶς ἐκρύβη τρίμηνον ὑπὸ τῶν πατέρων αὐτοῦ, διότι εἶδον ἀστεῖον τὸ παιδίον). 30 Josephus, Ant. 2.219–220 goes one step further when depriving Jochebed of these activities, while ascribing the hiding of Moses to Amram alone. It was Amram who placed the child Moses in a basket on the river. 31 The translator’s exegesis is etymological, as in similar ‫ב‬/‫ פ‬interchanges between MT and SP in Gen 31:49; Exod 15:10, and 2 Sam 10:16 ‫ ושובך‬// 1 Chr 19:16 ‫ושופך‬. We need not go as far as UTZSCHNEIDER, Die Septuaginta, 469, n. 15, who claimed that Moses’s sister was one of the persons who came to spy out the land of Canaan.

Moses in the Septuagint  11

sonal assistant and the girls on the riverside belonged to the same group, since the translation uses the same rare word (αἱ ἅβραι αὐτῆς) for all of them. The same leveling may have taken place in v. 6 if indeed the translator used a Hebrew text like MT. MT has two different words, ‫ הילד‬and ‫נער‬, while the LXX only has παιδίον. 32 h. In v. 9, Pharaoh’s daughter gives a simple command to Moses’ mother to “bring” 33 the child to her house and to nurse him. The LXX enhances the concern of Pharaoh’s daughter, since it reports her saying to Moses’ mother: “Take care” (διατήρησόν) of this child for me. j. It is not impossible that the translator intentionally used ἀναιρέω in vv. 5, 10, and 14 for different Hebrew words as a leitmotiv for Moses. In verse 5, ἀνείλατο αὐτήν (= ‫ )ותקחה‬is used for the act of the “taking” of the basket from the river (literally: “and she [the maid servant] took it”). 34 The Greek verb is unique in the LXX as an equivalent of ‫לקח‬. 35 In its second occurrence, in v. 10, ἀναιρέω (ἀνειλόμην) renders a rare Hebrew verb ‫“( משׁיתהו‬I drew him out of the water”), occurring elsewhere only in 2 Sam 22:17 // Ps 18:17. In the third occurrence, ἀναιρέω is used in this story in its majority usage, “to kill.” In v. 14, one of the Hebrews says to Moses: “Do you mean to kill me as you killed the Egyptian?” If the use of ἀναιρέω in the Moses story is intentional, this verb covers the major actions in the life cycle of the young Moses: The maidservant of Pharaoh’s daughter took the basket out of the water, Pharaoh’s daughter said that she drew Moses out of the water, and Moses was questioned whether he wanted to kill his fellow man, a Hebrew. 36 31 F

35 F

 32 The Hebrew text is difficult, and possibly contains a doublet since ‫ הילד‬and ‫ נער‬are parallel, and ‫ ותראהו‬parallels ‫והנה‬. 33 The form ‫ היליכי‬is difficult (HALOT suggests to correct to ‫)הוליכי‬, yet the form and the root should have been sufficiently clear so as not to have misled the translator. 34 This verb has two main meanings, “to carry off,” and “to kill,” but in the LXX it is used mainly in the latter sense. 35 Rather, λαμβάνω is used in the LXX, including in Exodus. 36 Or, in the words of UTZSCHNEIDER, Die Septuaginta, 472, “Moses carries his name because the daughter of the Egyptian Pharaoh drew him out of the water and adopted him.”

12  Emanuel Tov

2.2 Explaining the Story of the Ascent to Mount Sinai in Chapter 24 Beyond the mere translation of the Scripture text, the translator of chapter 24 focuses on theological interpretations (see vv. 10–11) 37 and internal literary logic. On the other hand, he has no major interest in the person of Moses. One of the more intriguing narratives in the Torah from a literary point of view is that of Moses’ ascent to Mt Sinai prior to receiving the stone tablets. The story of the ascent is narrated no less than six times in chapters 19, 24, 32, and 34, and as a result the sequence of events is very unusual. The narratives concerning the ascent to Mt Sinai are interrupted by the Decalogue and the Book of the Covenant (Exod 20:22–23:33). The different tradition blocks provide much occasion for literary 38 as well as textual analysis. Without attempting to solve all the problems, in chapter 24 alone the literary layers were combined in such a complicated literary fashion that Moses went up the mountain no less than three times (a, b, c), as is shown in the following table: Scope a. Exod 24:1–8

b. Exod 24:9– 11

c. Exod 24:12– 18

Person(s) Involved Moses (+ Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel) Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel Moses (+ Joshua) (13)

Ascent

Descent

Circumstances

24:2

? (see 24:9)

“Book of the Covenant” (24:7)

24:9

? (see 24:12)

stone tablets (24:12)

24:13

? (probably 32:15)

stone tablets

An obvious problem for the ancients was how to accommodate the fact that Moses went up the mountain more than once, alone or accompanied by different persons. The main textual sources known to us did not react to the multiple  37 See the analysis by WYCKOFF, When Does Translation Become Exegesis? 38 The penetrating analysis of Exodus 19–24 by TOEG, Lawgiving at Sinai, still has not been surpassed. As a more recent scholar puts it: “Here we ascend Mount Sinai, Moses writes down the Torah, the people make a covenant of blood with God, the elders actually see God, and God himself promises to write on ‘tablets of stone’ and give them to Moses. How could any priestly redactor, any Deuteronomic editor, or indeed any modern commentator resist such a chapter?” (SCHNIEDEWIND, How the Bible Became a Book, 123).

Moses in the Septuagint  13

ascents of Moses because the problems that we recognize in our critical reading of the text were usually not recognized by ancient scribes. What could the scribes have done? They could have removed obvious duplications in order to avoid the appearance of Moses having ascended the mountain so often. They also could have added clarifications in the text, such as the word “again” when Moses ascended the mountain for a second or third time. Or, after long insertions or digressions, they could have added so-called Wiederaufnahmen. However, as a rule, the text was not changed. The scribes and translators who were involved in the translation and transmission of these and other chapters did not rewrite the text in any major way; they limited themselves to a very thin layer of ad hoc exegesis as seen in the next five instances in the LXX. a. 24:1

MT

‫ואל־משׁה אמר עלה אל־יהוה אתה ואהרן נדב ואביהוא ושׁבעים מזקני ישׂראל‬ ‫ = והשׁתחויתם מרחק‬SP JPS Then He said to Moses, “Come up to the Lord, with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy elders of Israel, and bow low from afar. LXX Καὶ Μωυσῇ εἶπεν Ἀνάβηθι πρὸς κύριον σὺ καὶ Ααρων καὶ Ναδαβ καὶ Αβιουδ καὶ ἑβδομήκοντα τῶν πρεσβυτέρων Ισραηλ, καὶ προσκυνήσουσιν μακρόθεν τῷ κυρίῳ NETS And he said to Moyses, “Come up to the Lord, you and Aaron …. And they shall do obeisance to the Lord from afar. In MT, God commanded Moses and those who followed him to worship at a distance, continuing the command at the beginning of the verse (“you should go up”). On the other hand, the LXX knew that Moses was not to join the group and therefore the continuation of the command was phrased in the third person, “they will worship,” thus excluding Moses. b. 24:2b MT

‫“( והעם לא יעלו עמו‬and the people did not go up [plural] with him”) ὁ δὲ λαὸς οὐ συναναβήσεται μετ᾿ αὐτῶν (“and the people did not go up [singular] with them”).

This correction to a plural form of the pronoun, “with him” to “with them,” indicates that the people not only did not accompany Moses to the top of the mountain, but they also did not accompany the others to the lower level. The correction shows concern for the exact meaning of the context because Moses was not alone in ascending the mountain.

14  Emanuel Tov c. 24:13 MT ‫ = ויקם משׁה ויהושׁע משׁרתו ויעל משׁה אל־הר האלהים‬SP NRSV So Moses set out with his assistant Joshua, and Moses went up into the mountain of God LXX καὶ ἀναστὰς Μωυσῆς καὶ Ἰησοῦς ὁ παρεστηκὼς 39 αὐτῷ ἀνέβησαν εἰς τὸ ὄρος τοῦ θεοῦ· NETS And Moyses rose up and Iesous who assisted him, and they went up into the mountain of God. 24:13 attests to the differences between the various traditions, in which Moses went up the mountain either alone or together with others. This particular verse in MT is difficult since Moses and Joshua started out the journey together and only Moses arrived at the final destination. However, the LXX solved this issue by changing the verb from the singular to the plural in order to have both persons arrive at the destination (while at the same time omitting the name of “Moses”). 40 The comparison of the similar verses 12 and 13 described above is remarkable, since v. 13 was changed by the translator while v. 12 was not (12 The Lord said to Moses, “Come up to me on the mountain, and wait there ... 13 So Moses set out with his assistant Joshua, and Moses went up ...). A consistent change of the context could have led the translator to add the figure of Joshua also to v. 12. d. 24:14 MT LXX

‫ = ואל־הזקנים אמר‬SP And to the elders he (Moses) said καὶ τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις εἶπαν And to the elders they (Moses and Joshua) said

The change to the plural in the LXX continues the trend described in the previous item.

 39 This equivalent of ‫משרת‬, παρεστηκώς, is rare in the LXX (Num 11:28; Deut 21:5; 2 Sam 13:17). This is the first occurrence of the noun ‫משרת‬, and possibly the translator was still searching for equivalents. Subsequently, this translator used the standard LXX equivalents (θεράπων, λειτουργέω). 40 This verse may be compared with 33:11, where Moses is likewise joined by Joshua. The syntax of a singular verb joined by a compound subject ‫( ויקם משׁה ויהושׁע‬24:13) is standard in Biblical Hebrew.

Moses in the Septuagint  15

e. 24:15 MT LXX

‫ = ויעל משׁה אל־ההר‬SP And Moses went up to the mountain καὶ ἀνέβη Μωυσῆς καὶ Ἰησοῦς εἰς τὸ ὄρος And Moses and Joshua went up to the mountain

In this change in the LXX, we see the continuing trend of mentioning Joshua together with Moses. Presumably this is the original LXX reading of codex B together with many minuscules corrected in the other codices to the text of MT. The trend of inserting Joshua is not continued in vv. 16–18, which tell of the personal encounter between Moses and God. There really was no room for Joshua at that encounter since according to all traditions Moses was the only person who had met God personally. In conclusion to this section, the literary problems encountered in MT in Exodus 19, 24, 32, and 34 are very extensive, and some scribes intervened at the editorial-harmonizing level. This occurred especially in the LXX of chapter 24, as shown above, but see also the LXX of 19:10; 32:4; 34:1, SP 19:25, and 4QRPb (4Q364), frg. 14. This feature shows that while the Greek translator was sensitive to literary logic in the story about Moses, he did not change details in the description of Moses.

2.3 Other Remarkable Renderings Only very few remarkable renderings concerning Moses come to mind. a. Exod 33:7 MT SP ‫ = ומשה יקח את האהל ְונָטָה־לוֹ מִ חוּץ לַמַּ ֲחנֶה‬TO,F V NRSV Now Moses would take the tent and pitch it outside the camp LXX Καὶ λαβὼν Μωυσῆς τὴν σκηνὴν αὐτοῦ ἔπηξεν ἔξω τῆς παρεμβολῆς NETS And Moyses took his tent and pitched it outside the camp The addition of the pronoun “his” is shared with S (‫ )משכנה‬and TPs-J “his tent for teaching the Torah” (‫)במשכן אולפן אורייתא דיליה‬, and not repeated in v. 8. The suggestion that the LXX inserted theological exegesis when naming Moses’ tent “his tent” is challenging. However, probably there is no special theological

16  Emanuel Tov thought behind the addition of the pronoun in v. 7, which should be viewed as a simple translation technical change. 41 It is not impossible that ‫לו‬, without direct equivalent in the context (‫) ְונָטָה־לוֹ‬, is actually represented by αὐτοῦ. 42 The pronoun creates an opposition between the tent of Moses and those of all the people as mentioned in v. 10 (“all the people would rise and bow low, each at the entrance of his tent”). The Greek translator may have felt the need to explain which tent is being referred to in v. 7. This small change at the translational level was deemed necessary by the Greek translator and also, probably independently, by S (‫ )משכנה‬and TPs-J. At the same time, 33:7 is a complicated verse that may present a view of the tent 43 of meeting that differs from that in other chapters but, in my view, we need not connect this small detail in the Greek translation of v. 7 with theories about the documentary hypothesis or about the nature of the tent of meeting. 44 b. Num 21:21 MT SP ‫וישלח ישראל מלאכים אֶ ל־סִיח ֹן‬ And Israel sent messengers to Sihon LXX Καὶ ἀπέστειλεν Μωυσῆς πρέσβεις πρὸς Σηων NETS And Moyses sent ambassadors to Seon This rendering of the LXX could represent a tendentious change from “Israel” to “Moses,” but more likely it represents a harmonizing change to 20:14 where Moses sends messengers to Edom, and to 21:32 where he sends men on a spying mission. c. 1 Kgs 9:6 MT JPS LXX

‫וְ�א תִשְׁמְ רוּ מִ צְוֹתַ י חֻקּ ֹתַי אֲשֶׁ ר נָתַ תִּ י ִל ְפנֵיכֶם‬ and do not keep the commandments [and] the laws which I have set before you καὶ μὴ φυλάξητε τὰς ἐντολάς μου καὶ τὰ προστάγματά μου, ἃ ἔδωκεν Μωυσῆς ἐνώπιον ὑμῶν

 41 The Hebrew article (‫)האהל‬, which represents one form of determination is often represented in Greek by the pronominal suffix representing another form of determination (e.g., Josh 2:9). The same phenomenon also occurs vice versa, e.g., Exod 19:10 ‫ – שִׂ מְ �תָ ם‬τὰ ἱμάτια. 42 Thus LUSTIG, Moses eigenes Zelt. The author is grateful to Dr. Lustig for kindly allowing him to consult this insightful study. See also SOMMER, Translation as Commentary, 52–53. 43 Moses’s tent was referred to earlier, in 18:7. For an analysis of the problems involved in this verse and the verses in the context, see SOMMER, Translation as Commentary, 53. 44 For an analysis with much literature, see LUSTIG, Moses eigenes Zelt.

Moses in the Septuagint  17

NETS and do not keep my commandments and my ordinances that Moyses set before you There is a constant tension in Scripture regarding who actually gave the commandments, God or Moses, and it is difficult to determine which text is older in this case. For the formulation of MT, see Jer 9:12; 26:4; 44:10. For LXX, cf. Neh 10:30 in a general sense.

2.4 Characterizations of Moses The LXX contains a translation of the Hebrew Bible and we should not expect to find in it anything that is not directly related to the biblical text. Therefore, the reader will not find here a characterization of Moses or a summary of his activities, since the translator is bound by the Hebrew text he rendered and the words used in that text. Nevertheless, in the LXX, Moses is twice named a προφήτης (… ὥσπερ σέ), because that characterization followed the Hebrew text, once in a legal context (Deut 18:18) and once in a summary of his life (34:10 καὶ οὐκ ἀνέστη ἔτι προφήτης ἐν Ισραηλ ὡς Μωυσῆς, ὃν ἔγνω κύριος αὐτὸν πρόσωπον κατὰ πρόσωπον, “and there has not again arisen a prophet in Israel like Moyses whom the Lord knew face-to-face”). Moses’ other functions are not specified in the Hebrew or Greek Bible. Moses functions as a judge in Exod 18:13–27 = Deut 1:9–18, but he is not named a judge in that context. 45 By the same token, he functions as a στρατηγóς (a commander of an army, a general) in several of the stories in Exodus and Numbers as well as in his speech in Deuteronomy 1–3, yet this title is never used for him in the LXX or in the Hebrew Bible. The main function of Moses is that of a lawgiver (νομοθέτης), as the mediator between God and the people who relays the laws to the Israelites. However, not only is that title not used for him, with one exception 46 the word itself does not occur in the LXX.

 45 The verb “judging” is used in Exod 18:13, 16, 22, 26 and Deut 1:16, 17. 46 Ps 9:21 ‫ – שׁיתה יהוה מורה להם ידעו גוים אנושׁ המה‬κατάστησον, κύριε, νομοθέτην ἐπ᾿ αὐτούς, γνώτωσαν ἔθνη ὅτι ἄνθρωποί εἰσιν. In addition, the verb νομοθετέω occurs nine times in the canonical books of the LXX (as an equivalent of ‫)הורה‬.

18  Emanuel Tov In stark contrast with the LXX, in the postbiblical sources, which generally depend on the LXX, 47 these terms are used as seen in Josephus’ Antiquities. Here, Moses is depicted as a νομοθέτης 48 usually “our legislator,” 49 a στρατηγóς 50 and a ἡγεμών 51 Josephus did not single out the figure of Moses, as he adorned all biblical figures with a rich layer of contemporizing exegesis, well analyzed by Louis Feldman. 52 Feldman’s study includes a detailed analysis of the Moses figure, 53 especially his character and the qualities of his leadership. Likewise, Philo depicts Moses as a νομοθέτης. 54 Additional traditions are included in the early Jewish composition “Testament of Moses” also named the “Assumption of Moses,” which is a Palestinian composition possibly from the first century CE. This study has examined the special status of Moses in the LXX. We attempted to examine whether the translators of the various books in which he appears portray him in a different way from the Moses of the Hebrew Bible. Only if the Greek Moses was different from the Hebrew Moses would we have some information about Moses in the LXX. When examining various postbiblical compositions in which Moses is mentioned, the expectations of finding relevant material in the LXX are high, as many traditions not found in the MT of the Torah found their way into these sources. However, in spite of these great expectations, the sources of Philo, Ezekiel the Tragedian, and Josephus, namely the LXX itself, have little interest in exegetical traditions regarding Moses. The results of my investigation are thus rather negative, but this by itself is a remarkable phenomenon. The Greek books of the Torah reflect unmistakable contextual, theological, and legal exegesis, while on the other hand the figure of Moses was not the focus of their interest. This is the case also for the other biblical figures so far  47 For a good summary of these sources, see LE BOULLUEC/SANDEVOIR, La Bible d’Alexandrie, l’Exode, II, 26–31 (“La sortie d’Egypte et la figure de Moïse”). See further GAGER, Moses in Greco-Roman Paganism. 48 E.g., Ant. 1:24 (P. 4); 4.156 (4.6.13). 49 E.g., Ant. 1:23 (P.4). 50 E.g., Ant. 2.241 (2.10.1); 3.47 (3.2.3). 51 E.g., Ant. 2.268 (2.12.1). The contrast between the LXX and Josephus in this regard is mentioned by FELDMAN, Josephus’ Portrait of Moses. Part Two, 13. 52 Louis Feldman wrote a long series of studies on Josephus’s treatment of biblical figures, which are collected in his large monographic study: FELDMAN, Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible. 53 Earlier publications: Josephus’ Portrait of Moses. Part One; Josephus’ Portrait of Moses. Part Two; Josephus’ Portrait of Moses. Part Three. 54 E.g., Leg. 3:145; Det. 135.

Moses in the Septuagint  19

as I have been able to see; thus, this paper is a study in method. We do find a few exegetical details in the stories about Moses, but these are the exception rather than the rule. These details are analyzed in this paper together with a few remarks on the characterization of Moses.

Bibliography DINES, Jennifer M., What if the Reader is a She? Biblical Women and Their Translators, in: The Reception of the Hebrew Bible in the Septuagint and the New Testament: Essays in Memory of Aileen Guilding, Sheffield 2013, 56–82. DOUGLAS, Alex, Limitations to Writing a Theology of the Septuagint: Journal of Septuagint and Cognate Studies 45 (2012) 104–117. FELDMAN, Louis H., Josephus’ Portrait of Moses. Part One: JQR 82 (1992) 285–328. FELDMAN, Louis H., Josephus’ Portrait of Moses. Part Two: JQR 83 (1992) 7–50. FELDMAN, Louis H., Josephus’ Portrait of Moses. Part Three: JQR 83 (1993) 301–330. FELDMAN, Louis H., Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible (JSJSup 58), Leiden 1998. FELDMAN, Louis H., Philo’s Portrayal of Moses in the Context of Ancient Judaism (CJAS 15), Notre Dame 2007. FRANKEL, Zacharias, Über den Einfluss der palästinischen Exegese auf die alexandrinische Hermeneutik, Leipzig 1851. FRITSCH, Charles T., The Anti-anthropomorphisms of the Greek Pentateuch, Philadelphia 1943. GAGER, John G., Moses in Greco-Roman Paganism (SBLMS 16), Nashville 1972. HORBURY, William, Monarchy and Messianism in the Greek Pentateuch, in: M.A. Knibb (ed.), The Septuagint and Messianism (BETL 195), Leuven 2006, 79–128. KIM, Hayeon, Multiple Authorship of the Septuagint Pentateuch, Jerusalem 2007 (PhD Dissertation). KITTEL, Gerhard / FRIEDRICH, Gerhard (eds.), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT; 10 volumes), Grand Rapids 1964–1976. Translated from: Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament (TWNT), Stuttgart 1932–1979. LE BOULLUEC, Alain / SANDEVOIR, Pierre, La Bible d’Alexandrie: L’Exode, II, Paris 1989. LUSTIG, Christian, Moses eigenes Zelt. Zur Unterscheidung zweier Zeltkonzeptionen im griechischen Exodusbuch, forthcoming. MCDONALD, Joseph L., Searching for Sarah in the Second Temple Era: Portraits in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Narratives, Fort Worth 2015 (PhD Dissertation). PRIJS, Leo, Jüdische Tradition in der Septuaginta, Leiden 1948. Reprint: Hildesheim 1987. SCHNIEDEWIND, William M., How the Bible Became a Book: The Textualization of Ancient Israel, Cambridge 2004. SCHORCH, Stefan, Hellenizing Women in the Biblical Tradition: The Case of LXX Genesis: BIOSCS 41 (2008) 3–16. SOMMER, Benjamin D., Translation as Commentary: The Case of the Septuagint to Exodus 32– 33: Text 20 (2000) 43–60. TALSHIR, Zipora, 1 Kings and 3 Kingdoms: Origin and Revision, Case Study: The Sins of Solomon (1 Kgs 11): Text 21 (2002) 71–105.

20  Emanuel Tov TEETER, David A., Scribal Laws: Exegetical Variation in the Textual Transmission of Biblical Law in the Late Second Temple Period (FAT 92), Tübingen 2014. TOEG, Arie, Lawgiving at Sinai, Jerusalem 1977 (Heb.). TOV, Emanuel, Studies in the Vocabulary of the Septuagint: The Relation between Vocabulary and Translation Technique: Tarbiz 47 (1978) 120–138 (Heb. with Eng. summ). TOV, Emanuel, Theologically Motivated Exegesis Embedded in the Septuagint, in: Translation of Scripture: Proceedings of a Conference at the Annenberg Research Institute May 15–16, 1989 (JQRSup 1990), Philadelphia 1990, 215–233. Revised version: TOV, Emanuel, The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint (VTSup 72), Leiden 1999, 257–269. TOV, Emanuel, Three Strange Books of the LXX: 1 Kings, Esther, and Daniel Compared with Similar Rewritten Compositions from Qumran and Elsewhere, in: E. Tov, Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible, and Qumran (TSAJ 121), Tübingen 2008, 283–305. UTZSCHNEIDER, Helmut, Die Septuaginta als ‘Erzählerin’: Beobachtungen an der LXX-Fassung der Geburts- und Kindheitsgeschichte des Mose (Ex 2,1–10), in: W. Kraus and M. Karrer (eds.), Die Septuaginta–Texte, Theologien, Einflüsse: 2. Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 23.–27.7.2008 (WUNT 252), Tübingen 2010, 462–477. WYCKOFF, Eric J., When Does Translation Become Exegesis? Exodus 24:9–11 in the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint: CBQ 74 (2012) 675–693.

Kristin De Troyer

Adding Profile to Moses and Joshua The First Revision of the Book of Joshua Abstract: In this contribution, I have argued that the MT of the Book of Joshua demonstrates more consistency in its use of the title “Servant of God”, than can be found in the Old Greek. In the Old Greek, there are four Greek equivalents for the Hebrew. The consistent use of the expression “Servant of God” in the MT also reinforces the connection between the Book of Deuteronomy and the Book of Joshua—a connection which is not there on the Greek level and most likely the older Hebrew Vorlage of the Book of Joshua. Keywords: Book of Joshua, Old Greek, text criticism, nomistic corrections

1 Introduction In his article on Servant or Slave, Arie van der Kooij, notes that the Hebrew noun db( has a variety of equivalents in the Greek Pentateuch. 1 He summarizes the discussion and writes: “The interesting question is whether these renderings are to be seen as synonymous, or not:” 2 Does the word indicate a confidential attendant (qera/pwn), a bond-servant (doulo=j), a member of household (oike/thj), or a member with somehow less intimacy (pai=j) (H.ST. J. Thackeray) or are all these Greek renderings more or less equivalent (Benjamin G. Wright, also Kim)? 3 Van der Kooij then turns to analyse the four Greek nouns in Pentateuchal texts confronting the use and meaning of the nouns in contemporary Greek sources. He points to qera/pwn as being used to indicate a servant who is having a certain closeness of to the king, at least in the Book of Exodus, oike/thj as being used of a slave belonging permanently to a particular household, unlike Herodotus, who never uses pai=j to connote servant or slave, the noun also implies child in the Pentateuch, and finally, the word doulo=j which is rarely used in the Pentateuch (three times!), indicating in these three cases an unfree person, a captive, and not yet a slave—the latter only became the general  1 VAN DER KOOIJ, Servant or Slave?, esp. 225. 2 Ibidem. 3 Ibidem.

https://doi.org/10.1515/ 9783110596373-002

22  Kristin De Troyer meaning in Roman times. 4 Van der Kooij does not discuss the appearance of the word doulo=j in Deut 32:36, as that implies a religious use of the word which falls outside the scope of his contribution. 5 In this contribution, I will study the appositional title of Moses and Joshua (hwhy db() and see how this title was rendered in the Old Greek of the Book of Joshua. The question will be whether the four renderings as found in the Pentateuch are equally used to describe Moses and Joshua.

2 MT In the Book of Deuteronomy, Moses is often called the Servant of the Lord, hwhy db( and, literally till his last breath, Moses is labelled hwhy db( (Deut 34:5). When the Book of Joshua starts, Moses is again referred to with the same title (Joshua 1:1). In the MT text of the Book of Joshua, there are a lot of references (16 times) to Moses and almost always he is labelled hwhy db(. In Joshua 1:1, the successor of Moses is introduced: Joshua, but it takes a rather long time before he is labelled Servant of the Lord. More precisely, only in 24:29, when Joshua dies, is he labelled Servant of the Lord: “After these things, Joshua, the son of Nun, the servant of the Lord, died, being one hundred ten years old.” In the parallel reference to Joshua, in Judges 2:8, the same title is used. There is one more passage where Joshua is identified as the servant of the Lord: Joshua 5:14. In this section of the text, Joshua is confronted with a man standing before him with a drawn sword in his hand. Joshua does not recognize him at once and asks who he is. The person answers that he is the commander of the army of the Lord. Then Joshua falls on his face and asks what he wants him to do. Joshua identifies himself as “your servant” and addresses the man as “my Lord.” The man responds and commands Joshua to take off his sandals, as he stands on holy ground. And Joshua does so. Thus, whereas Moses has the best papers and is almost always labelled Servant of God, Joshua is only a couple times identified as servant of God. In all the cases, the same Hebrew expression (or a derivative, such as “your” servant) is used.

 4 Ibidem, 234, with a referenceto J.-A. Straus, 1976. 5 Ibidem, p. 235.

Adding Profile to Moses and Joshua  23

3 OG The Old Greek of the Book of Joshua, like the Old Greek of the Book of Deuteronomy, is using the four concepts as mentioned in the introduction: qera/pwn, oike/thj, pai=j and doulo=j. Why is there this pluriformity in translating one and the same Hebrew concept and its derivatives? Let me start with the last concept, doulo=j. As in the Pentateuch, the noun does not occur much. In the Old Greek Pentateuch, it occurs in Lev 25:44; 26:13 and Deut 32:36—all translations of db(. In the Old Greek of Joshua, it also does not occur much, namely only in 9:23 and Josh 24:29 (with its sister-text Judges 2:8). In Joshua 9:23, it truly refers to a slave. Joshua punishes the inhabitants of Gibeon. The Gibeonites have deceived Joshua and his people, by identifying themselves as people coming from far away instead of acknowledging that they were in fact, neighbours to Joshua. Now, Joshua “curses” them and states that (some of) the Gibeonites will “always be slaves, hewers of wood and drawers of water for the house of God” (and Israel). 6 Being a slave is thus parallel to being a hewer of wood or a drawer of water. All three concepts clearly refer to a lower status of the designated people. The slaves, hewers of wood and drawers of water serve other people. In Joshua 24, at the very end of the Book of Joshua (24:30) as well at the end of Joshua’s life, the word doulo=j is used once more. Strangely enough, now it is Joshua himself, who is labelled doulo=j, more precisely: dou=lou kuri/ou. This title is never given to Moses. Precisely the same title is used for Joshua in the parallel text of Judges 2:8. His title is remarkably different from the title that Moses receives in the Greek Book of Joshua: o9 pai=j kuri/ou. Before discussing the latter title, I turn to the use of the word oi0ke/thj, which is in the Pentateuch a translation of (again) the noun db(. Whereas in the Hebrew db( can indicate the servants/slaves of the pharaoh and/or the Israelites while they were slaves in Egypt (the latter especially in the Book of Deuteronomy), it also can refer to Abraham, Isaak and Israel. In Lev 25:55 God labels Israel, his people, his servants. Only once in the Old Greek of the Pentateuch is it used in connection with Moses: in Deut 34:5, Moses is called the servant of the Lord. In this context, the expression hwhy-db( is used. In the Old Greek of the Book of Joshua, oi0ke/thj occurs in the Old Greek of the Book of Joshua 5:14; 9:8 and 9:11. In 5:13 an angel with a sword appears before Joshua and Joshua asks him which side he is on: the enemies’ side or the

 6 The response of the Gibeonites will be discussed under the lemma pai=j.

24  Kristin De Troyer Israelites. The angel reassuringly answers, upon which Joshua bows down and identifies himself as the oi0ke/thj of the angel: Joshua is his servant. The Hebrew literally reads: wdb(-l) rbdm ynd) hm (What do you command your servant, my Lord? Josh 5:14), which the Greek renders with: ti/ prosta/sseij tw=| sw=| oi0ke/th| (What do you command to your servant?). In the Old Greek of 5:14, however Joshua refers to the angel as despo/thj, master lord, which could or could not be equated with God. But, in the Old Greek, the translator made it clear that Joshua decided to opt to associate himself with the angel speaking. The cases in chapter 9 deal with the tricky situation caused by the Gibeonites. As already mentioned, the latter approach Joshua and propose to be his servants (9:8). They repeat one more time that they are “his servants” and propose to enter an agreement with Joshua cum suis (9:11). The use of the term oi0ke/thj maybe appropriate, as in this case it deals with people who want to become part of another “household,” people expressing their wish to belong to the household of Joshua. What is however strange is that the Old Greek has alternated between oike/thj (9:8 and 11) and pai=j (9:9), the next word to be investigated. The Gibeonites seem to first refer to them as possible house servants (9:8) and then as Joshua’s slaves (9:9). 7 It maybe an intentional use of two concepts, maybe expressing two different point of views, with the Gibeonites defining themselves as house servants in relation to Joshua (9:8 and 9:11), but labelling themselves as slaves from a very far away country (9:9). What precisely the difference is between the words will be discussed further; the noun oi0ke/thj however seems to imply that one belongs to the household of another person. The next word to be discussed is qera/pwn, which again is a translation of the Hebrew db(. Again, the situation in the Old Greek of the Book of Joshua is not simple. The word is used in Josh 1:2 and in 8:31 and 33—the latter is part of what is in my opinion a later addition to the text (8:31–35). In all theses cases, the label is added to the character of Moses, not to Joshua. Josh 1:2 needs to be contrasted with Josh 1:1. In 1:1, in the MT, Moses is labelled the servant of the Lord. In 1:2, in the MT, Moses is again labelled the servant of the Lord. In the Old Greek of 1:1, however, the appositional further definition of Moses as “the servant of the Lord” is not translated. In the Old Greek of 1:2 however the apposition of the MT is rendered with qera/pwn. Precisely this Greek noun is then used in 8:31 and 33, again referring to Moses. That 8:31 and 33, or the author/editor of the entire section 8:30–35 used the same terminology as in 1:2 could be explained as the redactor of 8:30–35 turning to the first ap 7 See below, discussion of pai=j.

Adding Profile to Moses and Joshua  25

pearance in the Book of Joshua of the title of Moses, which he found in the second verse of the first chapter, right there in the second line of the first page of his book (1:2). 8 The title qera/pwn does imply a lower status of the person, however, it originally was used to indicate “free service,” a person attending another person, a sort of companion. 9 God, at least in the beginning of the Old Greek text of the Book of Joshua, thus seems to refer to Moses as his companion, his attendant. In the Greek text, with the use of qera/pwn, the special connection between God and Moses, with Moses being the attendant of God, seems to be established. This special relationship seems to have been expressed already in Ex 14:31 (“so the people feared the Lord and believed in the Lord and in his servant Moses”), with the Old Greek of the Book of Exodus 14:31 rendering the Hebrew wdb( with tw=| qera/ponti au0tou=. Then it seems that Joshua is guaranteed that this very same relationship will be continued with him in Josh 1:5, as it is written both in MT and OG: “As I was with Moses, so I will be with you”—the you being Joshua. This however is nowhere confirmed as Joshua never receives this apposition. Moreover, God is also, at least in the Old Greek of the Book of Joshua, not consistent, as he switches already in OG Josh 1:7 to the use of the noun pai=j. A next observation: whereas in the MT the use of the term hwhy db( connected the Book of Joshua with the Book of Deuteronomy—with Joshua 1:1 using the same expression hwhy db( as Deut 34:5—in the Old Greek the connection between the Book of Deuteronomy and the Book of Joshua is not made. To the contrary, whereas the term qera/pwn is used exclusively, albeit seldom, with regard to Moses, in the Old Greek of Deuteronomy, the noun qera/pwn is used to refer to the servants of the Pharaoh (in plural, see for instance, in Deut 29:1 and 34:11: “all his servants”), “your” (that is God’s) servants Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (in plural, see Deut 9:27: “your servants”) as well as Moses, the servant of God (3:24, “your servant”). Moreover, whereas in the Old Greek of the Book of Deuteronomy, the servants are referred to as “your” servant(s), in the Old Greek of the Book of Joshua, the servant Moses is referred to as “my servant” (o9 qera/pwn mou as in 1:2) or as “the servant of the Lord” (o9 qera/pwn kuri/ou as in OG 9:2, bis—which is parallel to MT 8:31 and 8:33). There is thus no exclusive link with regard to Moses’ title between the Book of Deuteronomy and the Book of Joshua, at least not on the Old Greek level. I do note however, that in the OG of the Book of Exodus, for instance in 14:31, and the OG of the Book of Numbers,  8 The text 8:30–35 is discussed at length in my forthcoming book: The Ultimate and the Penultimate Text. 9 LSJ, lemma qera/pwn.

26  Kristin De Troyer Moses is labelled o9 qera/pwn mou, for instance in Num 12:7 and Num 12:8 and to\n qera/ponta/ sou in Num 11:11, which is similar to the use in the Old Greek of the Book of Joshua, there could thus be a link between the usage of this noun in OG Exodus and Numbers and (the beginning of the) OG Joshua. The last noun to be discussed in this section is the noun pai=j, especially as it appears in the Old Greek of the Book of Joshua. The noun is used mostly to refer to a child, or periphrastic as for instance, the children of Israel, but also in general, a younger person and finally, to refer to a slave or servant, man or maid. 10 Moses is consistently called servant or child of God in the Old Greek (o9 pai=j kuri/ou). This is Moses’ most common title in the Old Greek of the Book of Joshua. In 1:7 (my servant), 1:13 (the servant of the lord), 7:7 (your servant); 9:24 (his servant); 11:12 (the servant of the Lord), 15 (his servant); 12:6 (the servant of the Lord); 13:8 (the servant of the Lord); 14:7 (the servant of God); 18:7 (the servant of the Lord); 22:2 (the servant of the Lord), and finally 22:5 (the servant of the Lord), there is either a direct (“the Lord” is mentioned) or indirect (“your” or “mine” is mentioned) reference to the deity (God). Moses is clearly the servant of the Lord. 11 A couple of these instances are noteworthy: first, in 14:7, not the standard title is used, “servant of the Lord” (o9 pai=j kuri/ou), but “servant of God” (o9 pai=j tou= qeou=). This instance is the only instance in the Old Greek of the Book of Deuteronomy and the Book of Joshua. In the hexaplaric tradition, this title has been corrected to o9 dou=loj kuri/ou, a title which is only once found in theOld Greek of the Book of Joshua, namely in Josh 24:29. 12 Second, OG Josh7:7 is interesting, as here Joshua (!) refers to himself as “thy servant” (o9 pai=j sou) who brought the people across the Jordan. In the MT, Joshua just complains and wonders why God brought the people to the other side of the Jordan. The Old Greek now applies a title that is only used of Moses in the Old Greek text (o9 pai=j kuri/ou)to the person of Joshua himself (o9 pai=j sou). The MT in this case has no title; the Old Greek thus has here a plus in comparison to the MT: o9 pai=j sou. In the Old Greek of the Book of Joshua, Joshua is mostly referred to as the ui9o\j Nauh. Once he is identified as the assistant of Moses (tw=| u9pourgw=|), not however the servant of the Lord. Only at the end of the Book, does Joshua receive a title like the one given to Moses: he is

 10 LSJ, lemma pai=j. 11 I remind the reader that in the Old Greek of Joshua, in the context of the Gibeonites the noun pai=j is also used. In 9:9 and 10:6, the Gibeonites defined themselves in relation to Joshua as his slaves: oi9 pai=de/j sou/ tw=n pai/dwn sou.” 12 See below.

Adding Profile to Moses and Joshua  27

labelled the servant of the Lord. However, in the Old Greek of Josh 24:30, not the standard title for Moses, o9 pai=j kuri/ou, is used, but o9 dou=loj kuri/ou. 13 Whereas in Josh 7:7 I noted a plus of the Old Greek in comparison with the MT, I also note that there are pluses in the MT which do not have a counterpart in the Old Greek text. For instance, in Joshua 1:1, 15; 12:6 (second case) and 22:4, there is each time a reference to Moses as the servant of the Lord in the Hebrew text, but no apposition to the name of Moses in the Old Greek text. It is remarkable that in two of these cases (1:1 and 1:15), the hexaplaric tradition has corrected the minus and offered the following reading: dou/lou kuri/ou. The latter reading is nowhere attested in the Old Greek of Joshua, but it occurs in the Old Greek of Judges (15:18: Samson as the slave of the Lord!), in the Old Greek of 1 Sam (in reference to David) as well as in the Old Greek section of 2 Sam (in reference to David; however also in 2 Sam 24:10) and 1Kgs (in reference to David and Salomon and again to Moses), etc… 14 The correction to dou/lou kuri/ou most likely stems from the Early Jewish Revisers who in this case read dou/lou kuri/ou, as can be seen at the reading in 1:15 in Codex M and in the marginal notes of ms 344. In 12:6, however the hexaplaric correction is in line with the usual title and reads o9 pai=j kuri/ou. For the latter correction, no data can be found in the Early Jewish Revisers. However, the latter reading is to be expected as in 12:6a, the preceding phrase, in the Old Greek o9 pai=j kuriou= was used. The corrector did thus not need to look far away. The correction can be found in G, a, b, c, x and in the Armenian version as well as in the Syro-hexapla (with an asterisk). In contrast to the usage of the noun pai=j in the Old Greek of the Book of Joshua, in the Old Greek of the Book of Deuteronomy, the term pai=j is never used in association with Moses. The word pai=j occurs in the Old Greek of the Book of Deuteronomy. In OG Deut 22:23, 25, 28; 23:16 and 28:68, the texts deal with an engaged woman, a non-engaged woman or a maiden servant. Finally, in Deut 28:68, the Israelites are told to identify themselves as (male and female) slaves—again the noun pai=j is used. In Gen 18:3 and 26:24, Abraham is called with this title. But Moses is never in the Old Greek of Deuteronomy identified as the “servant of God!” He is never o9 pai=j kuri/ou! Only in two instances is there a reference to Moses’ relationship to God, but in these instances, not o9 pai=j kuri/ou but Mwush=j a1nqrwpoj tou= qeou= is used (Deut 33:1) and oi0ke/thj kuri/ou in Deut 34:5. Again, I conclude that whereas there was with regard of the title of  13 I note a connection between the hexaplaric correction in 14:7 and the Old Greek of 24:30. The hexaplaric corrector in 14:7 seems to know the title of Joshua of 24:30! 14 This connection between the hexaplaric correction and the Old Greek sections of the above mentioned books can be explored in another article.

28  Kristin De Troyer Moses (hwhy db() a connection between the Book of Deuteronomy and the Book of Joshua on the Hebrew level, there is no similar link on the Greek level.

4 Conclusions With regard to Moses: in the MT, Moses is often called “the servant of the Lord,” hwhy db(); in the OG, this label is translated with four different renderings: doulo=j, qera/pwn, oike/thj, and pai=j. Moses is never in the Old Greek Pentateuch nor in the Old Greek of the Book of Joshua labelled doulo=j. Joshua, however, does receive this title, and he does so at the end of his life. The expression in Hebrew in Josh 24:30 is hwhy db( and it is rendered with dou=loj kuri/ou. Moses is also labelled a couple times qera/pwn, a servant attending to God— but this happens only in Old Greek Numeri and in the Old Greek of the Book of Joshua. The expression is never used in the Old Greek of the Book of Deuteronomy, at least with regard to Moses. Joshua seems never to be in this a close relation to God; he does nowhere carry the title qera/pwn. With regard to oike/thj: only once is this title used to describe Moses: in Deut 34:5, where it is, as expected, a translation of the Hebrew: db(. In the Old Greek of the Book of Joshua, it is used once by Joshua to identify himself as siding with the angel with the drawn sword, who in the Hebrew text could also be interpreted as being God. Joshua, thus proclaims himself to belong to the house of either God (MT) or the angel (OG). With regard to the last title pai=j: in the Old Greek of the Book of Joshua, Moses is definitively o9 pai=j kuri/ou, with pai=j again being a translation of db(. This title is definitively the favourite title used to describe Moses in the Old Greek of the Book of Joshua. The expression o9 pai=j kuri/ou, is, however, never used to describe Moses in the Old Greek Pentateuch. 15 Moreover, this title is in the Old Greek of the Book of Joshua always used to describe Moses, aside from Josh 7:7, where in the Old Greek, Joshua identifies himself as o9 pai=j sou. This self-identification, is, however, only found in the Old Greek and not in the MT! There is thus mostly one title used in the MT to describe Moses. Moses is the servant of the Lord (hwhy db().This appositional title is found in MT Deut, albeit only once and the MT of the Book of Joshua continues with the label from the MT of the Book of Deuteronomy. The situation in the Old Greek Pentateuch

 15 Only in OG Num 14:24 is the title used in the Pentateuch, and in that case it is a title given to Caleb!

Adding Profile to Moses and Joshua  29

and in the Old Greek of the Book of Joshua is however totally different, with four different Greek nouns rendering the one Hebrew expression. Moses is labelled foremost o9 pai=j kuri/ou, and a couple times qera/pwn. Whereas the latter title seems to be connecting the OG of the Books of Exodus and Numbers with the OG of the Book of Joshua, the former Greek appositional title seems, at least with regard to Moses, exclusive for the Old Greek of the Book of Joshua. With regard to Joshua: Joshua is only at the end of his life an hwhy db( (Josh 24:29), with the Old Greek rendering this expression using dou=lou kuri/ou—a title never used for Moses, at least not in the Old Greek. There is thus an equivalence between Moses and Joshua in the MT, which can not be found in the Old Greek of the Book of Joshua. Moreover, Joshua never receives the label o9 pai=j kuri/ou in the Old Greek of the Book of Joshua, except in a plus of the OG. Finally, the small link between the appositional title of Moses in the Book of Deuteronomy and in the Book of Joshua can only be found on the MT level, not on the Old Greek, as one expression at least connects the ending of MT Deut 34:5 with the beginning of the MT of Book of Joshua. There is thus definitively a difference in the Old Greek of the Book of Joshua between Moses and Joshua. Joshua never, aside in one plus, receives the same appositional title as Moses. Joshua is foremost a slave, even if he has proclaimed himself to stand at the side of God, but Moses surely stands in a special relation with God and is his child.

Bibliography DE TROYER, Kristin, The Ultimate and the Penultimate Text of the Book of Joshua (CBET 100), Leuven, forthcoming. VAN DER KOOIJ, Arie, Servant or Slave?: The Various Equivalents of Hebrew Ebed in the Septuagint of the Pentateuch, in: M.K.H. Peters (ed.), XIII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies (SBLSCS 55), Atlanta 2008, 225–238.

Jeremy Corley

No Small Difference When Introducing Samuel in Sirach 46:13 Abstract: While the Cairo Genizah text preserves three Hebrew bicola for Ben Sira 46:13, the Greek version omits any reference to Samuel as a nazirite and priest. Some roles given to Samuel in Hebrew Ben Sira are known from the MT of First Samuel, especially as prophet and judge, establisher of the monarchy and anointer of rulers. His depiction as a nazirite matches 4QSama for 1 Sam 1:22 as well as the Mishnaic tractate Nazir. While Samuel began as an apprentice of the Levitical priest Eli and later offered sacrifice at a time of national crisis, the MT of First Samuel never specifically calls him a priest, but Ben Sira’s portrayal of him as an officiating priest draws out the implication of Ps 99:6. Keywords: nazirite, priest, prophet, Samuel, Sirach

1 Introduction The prophet Samuel is an important character in the First Book of Samuel, and he is also mentioned in Ps 99:6 and Jer 15:1, as well as in the Books of Chronicles. While the narrative in First Samuel is well known, Ben Sira’s treatment of Samuel (Sir 46:13-20) has received less attention. Renzo Petraglio’s 1997 article on Sir 46:13-20 explores Ben Sira’s twofold attitude toward the Old Testament, whereby sometimes he accurately preserves details, but elsewhere he shows great originality in modifying or omitting other details. 1 Petraglio also demonstrates how the Greek version updates the Praise. Johannes Marböck’s 2006 contribution offers a detailed exploration of the passage, mainly based on the Greek version, also showing connections with First Samuel. 2 Jeremy Corley’s 2009 article has supplied a reconstruction of the Hebrew text of the passage and studied the sage’s selective use of earlier traditions from the Hebrew Bible. 3 Most recently, Andrzej Demitrów’s 2011 dissertation has provided a careful

 1 PETRAGLIO, Le Siracide, 287-304. 2 MARBÖCK, Samuel, 205-217. 3 CORLEY, Portrait, 31-56.

https://doi.org/10.1515/ 9783110596373-003

No Small Difference When Introducing Samuel in Sirach 46:13  31

study of the pericope in the context of an exploration of the four praying figures (Joshua, Samuel, David, and Hezekiah) celebrated within Sirach 46-48. 4 Instead of examining Ben Sira’s whole pericope on Samuel (Sir 46:13-20), the present article focuses on a single verse (Sir 46:13), seeking to understand the divergent Hebrew and Greek forms. It situates Sir 46:13 within its Second Temple context by referring to the major Qumran Samuel scroll (4QSamuela = 4Q51), as well as to three first-century authors, Philo, Josephus and PseudoPhilo. Ariel Feldman notes that the Qumran discoveries have included four MSS containing parts of First Samuel (1Q7, 4Q51, 4Q52, 4Q53). 5 In addition, a retelling of the call of Samuel (based on 1 Samuel 3) appears in the first fragment of the so-called Vision of Samuel (4Q160), while Ps 151 in the Cave Eleven Psalms Scroll mentions Samuel’s anointing of David within its retelling of 1 Samuel 1617 (11QPsa 28.8). Furthermore, Donald Parry has shown that many Qumran texts (such as 1QH) echo language from First Samuel, though these borrowings rarely concern the actions of Samuel himself. 6 To be sure, Philo calls Samuel “the greatest of the kings and prophets” (Ebr. 143) and alludes a few times to the story of Samuel, often in connection with Hannah (e.g., Ebr. 143-152; Migr. 191-197; Deus 5-15; Mut. 143-144; Somn. 1.254). 7 Because of Josephus’ lengthy treatment of the story of Samuel (Ant. 5.10.1 §338 6.14.2 §336), Louis Feldman declares: “That Samuel was of particular interest to Josephus may be seen from the fact that he devotes more space to him, relative to the biblical original, than to any other prophet.” 8 The Latin work known as the Book of Biblical Antiquities or more commonly Pseudo-Philo (perhaps from the first century CE), also devotes several chapters to the prophet Samuel (LAB 49-64). Pseudo-Philo includes a long account of Samuel’s birth (LAB 50:1-51:7), as well as a briefer treatment of his farewell discourse (LAB 57:1-4). However, the NT refers to Samuel only three times by name: twice in Acts in relation to his role as prophet (Acts 3:24; 13:20) and once in Hebrews among the heroes of Israelite faith (Heb 11:32). Apart from the omission of one word, the Cairo Genizah MS B preserves three bicola for Sir 46:13, whereas much of the opening verse is not represented in the Greek text. Most strikingly, the Greek lacks any reference to Samuel as a

 4 DEMITRÓW, Oranti, 117-227. 5 FELDMAN, Scrolls, 5-6. 6 PARRY, Retelling, 296-299 (chart of Qumran parallels to 1 Samuel 1-12). 7 COHEN, Philo’s Scriptures, 109-112 and 124-127; FELDMAN, Scrolls, 8-9. 8 FELDMAN, Josephus’ Interpretation, 490-508 (quotation from p. 507).

32  Jeremy Corley nazirite and priest (both found in the Syriac). Accordingly, the first part of the article examines the textual divergences between the Genizah Hebrew manuscript and the Greek text, and also attempt to explain the differences. The remainder of the article then considers the titles given to Samuel in the Hebrew of Sir 46:13 in light of understandings of Samuel in other Second Temple period writings. Burton Mack indicates that Sir 46:13-20 portrays Samuel in a composite fashion as judge, priest, and prophet: “As judge, he is said to have ‘commanded the congregation’ (46:14); as priest, to have offered sacrifice (46:16); and as prophet, to have ‘established the kingdom,’ ‘anointed princes,’ and ‘declared unto the king his way’ (46:13, 20).” 9 As a judge he belongs with the other judges (46:11-12), mentioned just before the praise of Samuel. As a priestly figure Samuel matches not only Simeon II but also three other high priests (Aaron, Phinehas, and Jeshua), celebrated in Sirach 44-50. Finally, as a prophet he belongs with Joshua, Nathan, Elijah, Elisha, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve. Because of variations among the diverse traditions, tables are included to present various aspects of Samuel from the Hebrew text of Sir 46:13 in comparison with other writings. Besides Ben Sira (Hebrew MS B, LXX, Syriac), the present study considers parallels in the presentation of Samuel within several texts prior to 100 CE, such as the Book of Samuel (4QSama, MT, LXX); other Qumran texts; and three first-century CE authors: Philo, Josephus, and Pseudo-Philo.

2 Sirach 46:13 in Hebrew and Greek The opening of Ben Sira’s poem on Samuel, as preserved in Cairo Genizah MS B, highlights his character as friend of the nation, beloved of God, and someone dedicated for life, before mentioning his roles of nazirite, prophet, judge, and priest. The Hebrew text of Sir 46:13 reads: 10

 9 MACK, Wisdom, 34. 10 For the Hebrew text of Ben Sira, see BEN-HAYYIM, Book; BEENTJES, Book. For the Greek, see ZIEGLER, Sapientia. For the Syriac, see CALDUCH-BENAGES et al., Wisdom. Restoration of lacuna in 46:13e follows SEGAL, Sēper, 321; DEMITRÓW, Oranti, 123. All translations of Hebrew Ben Sira are mine. In this article Sir 46:13a refers to the first colon in Sir 46:13, while 46:13f refers to the sixth colon in 46:13 (rather than 46:13-14). In my textual comments, H = Hebrew manuscript B; G = Greek; S = Syriac.

No Small Difference When Introducing Samuel in Sirach 46:13  33

Friend of his people and favored by his Maker, The one dedicated from his mother’s womb, 13c Nazirite of YHWH in prophecy, Was Samuel, judge and officiating priest. 13e By the [word] of God he established the kingship, And he anointed rulers over the people. 13a

This verse includes a Hebrew wordplay on the name of Samuel (‫)שמואל‬, described as “dedicated” (‫ )משואל‬to God from his mother’s womb. However, when we turn to the grandson’s version, it becomes evident that (as the Greek prologue asserts) there is “no small difference” here between the Hebrew and the Greek. 11 Many aspects of this difference are evident in the grandson’s translation technique. 12 A textual difference is clearly visible in 46:13, where Hebrew has six cola and Greek perhaps has three or four cola (depending on the layout). 13 According to Ziegler, the Greek text reads: Beloved by his Lord was Samuel, 13c A prophet of the Lord; 13e He established a kingdom, And he anointed rulers over his people. 13a

Since it is possible that a small part of the opening has been joined to the Greek of Sir 46:12, the following table compares the Hebrew and Greek of Sir 46:12-13. 14 Sir 46:12-13 (Hebrew MS B) 12a [May their bones be flourishing in place of them,] 12b And may their name be a replacement for their sons. 13a Friend of his people and favored by his Maker, 13b The one dedicated from his mother’s womb, 13c Nazirite of YHWH in prophecy, 13d Was Samuel, judge and officiating priest.

Sir 46:12-13 (Ziegler’s Greek) 12a May their bones sprout anew out of their plot, 12b And their name be exchanged for the sons. Having received glory of human beings, beloved by his Lord was Samuel; -13a

NB: [13c A prophet of the Lord] NB: [13aWas Samuel]

 11 WRIGHT, Difference, 119. Omission of words from 46:13 is noted in MINISSALE, La versione greca, 258. 12 WRIGHT, Difference, 114-116. 13 Although Ziegler prints the Greek of Sir 46:13 as three cola, I have presented it as four cola in order to illustrate the parallels with the Hebrew. 14 Greek translation from WRIGHT, Sirach, 757 (except for 46:12b).

34  Jeremy Corley

By the [word] of God he established the kingship, 13f And he anointed rulers over the people. 13e

--

A prophet of the Lord, he established a kingdom, 13f And he anointed rulers over his people. 13ce

At transition points within the Praise of the Ancestors, the Greek version often fails to recognize that the Hebrew text is beginning a portrait of a new character until the person is named. 15 The Hebrew concludes the short section on the Judges by saying: “And may their name be a replacement for their sons” (46:12b), and then immediately begins the section on Samuel by declaring: “Friend of his people and favored by his Maker” (46:13a). However, the Greek uncials conclude the section on the Judges: “And may their name be exchanged for the sons of their glorified ones (δεδοξασμένων αὐτῶν)” (46:12b Vaticanus), before introducing Samuel in these words: “beloved by his Lord was Samuel” (46:13a Sinaiticus). The sense of Ziegler’s emended Greek of 46:12b-46:13a seems to be: “And may their name be exchanged for the sons. Glorified among humankind (δεδοξασμένος ἀνθρώπων), beloved by his Lord was Samuel.” 16 A comparable textual divergence occurs at the opening of the Greek portrait of the high priest Simeon. The Greek here lacks the Hebrew phrase: “Great among his brothers and splendor of his people” (50:1a), but transfers a corresponding phrase to Joseph: “A leader of brothers, a support of the people” (49:15). 17 A table (omitting the intervening verse 49:16) illustrates the difference. 18 Sirach 49:15 & 50:1 (Hebrew MS B) 15a Like Joseph was there a man born? --

And even his dead body was looked after. Great among his brothers and splendor of his people, 1b Was Simeon son of Johanan, the priest. 15b 1a

Sirach 49:15 & 50:1 (Greek) 12a Nor has there been born a man like Ioseph, 12a+ A leader of brothers, a support of the people, 12b And they watched over his bones. 1a -1b

Simon son of Onias was the great priest.

The change in the Greek text, made by the grandson when translating in Egypt, has the effect of aggrandizing the most honourable biblical Israelite to have held office in Egypt. Accordingly, Robert Hayward explains: “If the Greek translator truly removed from 50:1 Hebrew phrases qualifying the high priest  15 SKEHAN/DI LELLA, Wisdom, 517; DEMITRÓW, Oranti, 119-120. 16 ZIEGLER, Sapientia, 343; cf. MINISSALE, La versione greca, 249. Ziegler’s emendation is open to question. 17 SKEHAN/DI LELLA, Wisdom, 548. 18 Greek translation from WRIGHT, Sirach, 760.

No Small Difference When Introducing Samuel in Sirach 46:13  35

Simeon, then the translator has (quite literally) transferred to Joseph some of the praise and glory and royal terminology originally ascribed to the now dethroned Zadokite dynasty and its representative.” 19 As in the case of Samuel, the disruption occurs at the opening of a passage referring to a priestly figure. There may also be another scribal reason for the differences. Besides the confusion about the opening of a new poetic unit, the Greek may be shorter because of scribal haplography (both homoioarchton and homoioteleuton) occurring between ‫“( המשואל‬the one dedicated,” 46:13b) and ‫“( שמואל‬Samuel,” 46:13d). 20 A comparable example of haplography may partly explain the omission of Sir 6:23-24 in Genizah MS A, since the scribe’s eye may have slipped to the concluding word ‫“( בתחבולתיה‬with her directions,” 6:25b) and overlooked the similar word ‫“( בחבלותיה‬in her cords,” 6:24b, conjectured by Segal). 21 A further aspect of the textual divergence is the gender-based rationale of the Greek, which here omits references to his dedication as a nazirite from his mother’s womb. Nuria Calduch-Benages observes: “The Greek version presents a very different text, in which the allusions to Hannah’s vow and the birth of Samuel completely disappear.” 22 Similarly, whereas the Hebrew of Sir 47:6 mentions the acclamations sung to David by “daughters” or “girls” (cf. 1 Sam 18:7), the Greek version merely has an indefinite subject. 23 In addition, perhaps the priestly aspect of the portrayal of Samuel was deliberately altered by the grandson’s translation for ideological reasons, because of the Hasmonean takeover of the high priesthood. 24 Similarly, it may be for ideological reasons that the Greek of Sir 44:4d omits a phrase possibly referring to the temple priesthood: “rulers (‫ )משלים‬in their liturgical offices (‫)במשמרותם‬.” 25 Indeed, the verb “rule” (‫ )משל‬appears in the description of Aaron in 45:17: “And he made him rule (‫ )וימשילהו‬with statute and judgement.” The mention of ruling 20F

 19 HAYWARD, Multum, 198. Cf. MINISSALE, La versione greca, 223. 20 SEGAL, Sēper, 321; MARBÖCK, Samuel, 206. 21 SEGAL, Sēper, 41; cf. SKEHAN/DI LELLA, Wisdom, 192. The omission of 6:23-24 may also be due to its replacement in MS A by 27:5-6. 22 CALDUCH-BENAGES, Absence, 308 n. 35. Nevertheless, the Greek of Sir 49:7 preserves the Hebrew notion (taken from Jer 1:5) that Jeremiah was a prophet “from the womb” (ibid., 310311). Second-Isaiah makes similar statements about other chosen or prophetic figures (Isa 44:2, 24; 49:1, 5). 23 CALDUCH-BENAGES, Absence, 305. 24 PETRAGLIO, Il libro, 209-210. 25 MINISSALE, La versione greca, 127, 134. On this translation see CORLEY, Sir 44:1-15, 166-167; SEGAL, Sēper, 305; MINISSALE, La versione greca, 130.

36  Jeremy Corley is appropriate, since in Ben Sira’s day the high priest in practice exercised civil governance over Jerusalem as well as religious authority. 26 In summary, the divergence of the Greek text of Sir 46:13 from the Hebrew may derive from a combination of factors: the translator’s confusion at the opening of a new section of the Praise of the Ancestors (46:13a), scribal haplography (46:13b to 46:13d), lack of interest in Hannah’s role (46:13b), and dislike for the priestly portrayal of Samuel (46:13d). Interestingly, whereas the Hebrew text employs three terms for the Deity (“his Maker … YHWH … God”), the Greek merely has “Lord” twice.

3 Friend of his people Sir 46:13

First Samuel First century CE texts

Hebrew: Friend of his people Syriac: [and their praise for all the people] Greek (Ziegler): Glorified among humankind [Implied in 1 Sam 12:23] Josephus: “A man who had enjoyed no common esteem among the Hebrews” (Ant. 6.13.5 §292)

In the Genizah MS the portrait of Samuel opens with the phrase “friend of his people” (46:13a), depicting him in Hellenistic style as a national benefactor. 27 A parallel Greek term φιλόλαος (“friend of the people”) appears in Jewish epitaphs from the 2nd to 4th centuries CE. 28 Whereas Hellenistic monarchs had advisers called “friends of the king” (e.g., 1 Macc 2:18; 3:38; 11:57), Ben Sira portrays Samuel as the people’s friend, just as 2 Macc 4:2 portrays the high priest Onias as “the benefactor of the city, and the protector of his compatriots, and a zealot for the laws.” Luke 7:5 offers a comparable portrait of a Roman centurion in Galilee: “He loves our nation and built the synagogue for us himself.” However, whereas a Hellenistic ruler might act as a “friend of his people” by financing lavish building projects, Samuel showed his friendship for his nation in other ways. His love for them was evident in his continual prayer for them and his ongoing moral guidance, as he says in his farewell speech: “Far be it from me that I should sin against the Lord by ceasing to pray for you; and I will in-

 26 HENGEL, Judaism, 1.271. 27 Compare the portrayal of Jeremiah as “friend of his brothers” in 2 Macc 15:14. 28 VAN DER HORST, Epitaphs, 65-67; cf. VAN PEURSEN, Verbal System, 221 n. 119.

No Small Difference When Introducing Samuel in Sirach 46:13  37

struct you in the good and the right way” (1 Sam 12:23). The people’s esteem for Samuel is evident in his death notice in 1 Sam 25:1: “When Samuel died, all Israel gathered and mourned for him.” 29 Because the Hebrew reading in 46:13a is not exactly reflected in the diverse versions, many commentators reconstruct a presumed original text form. For instance, where the Hebrew MS has ‫“( אוהב‬friend” or “one who loves”), Moshe Segal suggests that the original text had ‫“( אהוב‬beloved” or “one who is loved”). 30 However, Patrick Skehan reconstructs a presumed original text form, based on elements of the Greek: “honored among people.” 31 The conjectured first word “honored” (‫ )נכבד‬echoes the niphal participle adjective used of Samuel in 1 Sam 9:6. Moreover, after the call of Samuel, 1 Sam 3:20 says: “And all Israel from Dan to Beersheba knew that Samuel was trustworthy as a prophet for YHWH.” Josephus emphasizes the respect shown for Samuel in his paraphrase of 1 Sam 3:20: “The renown (δόξα) of Samuel increased more and more, since all that he prophesied was seen to come true” (Ant. 5.10.4 §351). 32 Later, when reporting Samuel’s death, Josephus portrays him as “a man who had enjoyed no common esteem among the Hebrews” (Ant. 6.13.5 §292). 31 F

4 Favored by his Maker Sir 46:13

First Samuel First century CE texts

Hebrew: Favored by his Maker Syriac: Beloved by his Creator Greek: Beloved by his Lord YHWH was with him (1 Sam 3:19) Josephus: “Very dear to God” (Ant. 6.13.5 §294)

The second part of 46:13a in the Genizah MS has the phrase “favored by his Maker” or “acceptable to his Maker.” The divine title “his Maker” occurs fre-

 29 DEMITRÓW, Oranti, 147. 30 SEGAL, Sēper, 321. A comparable textual change occurs in Sir 49:9, where the Hebrew MS has the original reading ‫“( איוב‬Job”), but the Greek mention of ἐχθρῶν (“enemies”) suggests that the translator read ‫“( אויב‬enemy,” understood as a collective noun); cf. ibid., 338. 31 SKEHAN/DI LELLA, Wisdom, 516. 32 All Josephus references in this article are from THACKERAY/MARCUS, Josephus, vol. 5.

38  Jeremy Corley quently in Ben Sira (Sir 7:30; 10:12; 32:13; 33:13; 38:15; 43:5, 11; 47:8). 33 When Sir 46:13 calls Samuel both “friend of his people” and “favored by his Maker,” the double viewpoint echoes 1 Sam 2:26, though the phraseology differs: “And the boy Samuel continued to grow in stature and in favor both with YHWH and with human beings.” 34 Similarly, the narrator declares divine approval, stating: “YHWH was with him” (1 Sam 3:19). After recounting Samuel’s death, Josephus describes him as “a man of just and kindly nature, and for that reason very dear to God” (Ant. 6.13.5 §294). While the concept of “favor” or “acceptance” (‫ )רצון‬often applies to a sacrificial offering presented on the altar (e.g., Isa 56:7; Jer 6:20), in Sir 46:13 it refers to the person himself. 35 Although Samuel is described as offering sacrifice that was acceptable to God (1 Sam 7:9-10; Sir 46:16), here the sage depicts Samuel himself as the sacrifice accepted by the Deity. Other deuterocanonical texts refer to God’s acceptance of persons who have experienced tribulation (Sir 2:5; Wis 3:6). The passive participle ‫ רצוי‬can have the sense of “favored” or “favorite.” In Moses’ final blessing of Israel’s tribes, Asher is called “favorite (‫ )רצוי‬of his brothers” (Deut 33:24). A comparable expression occurs in Neh 13:26, where King Solomon is described as “beloved by his God.” 36 Indeed, with an eye to the Greek and Syriac of 46:13a, Skehan reconstructs a presumed original text form: “dear to his Maker.” 37 If we accept the conjectured word “dear” or “beloved” in 46:13, the portrayal of Samuel echoes the picture of Moses in the Greek of 45:1, where he is called “beloved by God and human beings.” 34F

35F

36F

5 The one dedicated from his mother’s womb Sir 46:13

Hebrew: “Dedicated” Syriac: “Asked for”

 33 DEMITRÓW, Oranti, 148. Where Greek has the phrase “his Lord,” it cannot render the Tetragrammaton (which never takes a suffix), but perhaps reflects ‫“( אדוניו‬his master”); cf. SEGAL, Sēper, 321. 34 DEMITRÓW, Oranti, 149. 35 God’s servant in Isa 42:1 is called “my chosen one, whom my soul favors (‫)רצתה‬.” The same passive participle ‫ רצוי‬in Esth 10:3 describes Mordecai as “esteemed” by many of his compatriots. 36 DEMITRÓW, Oranti, 145. 37 SKEHAN/DI LELLA, Wisdom, 516.

No Small Difference When Introducing Samuel in Sirach 46:13  39

First Samuel First century CE texts

Greek: -“Lent” or “dedicated” (1 Sam 1:28 MT) “A loan to the Lord” (1 Sam 1:28 LXX) Philo: “Appointed by God” (Deus 1.5; Ebr.144); “Appointed to God” (Somn. 1.254). Josephus: “Asked of God” (Ant. 5.10.3 §346) Pseudo-Philo: “Mighty one” (LAB 51:1)

The Hebrew text of Sir 46:13 plays on the name of Samuel (‫)שמואל‬, portrayed as “dedicated” (‫ )משואל‬to God from his mother’s womb. 38 An interpretation of the unusual pual participle (‫ )משואל‬as “dedicated” is deduced by analogy with the qal passive participle in 1 Sam 1:28, where Samuel is reported to have been “dedicated” (‫ )שאול‬to YHWH. 39 Within 1 Sam 1:28, the qal passive participle is effectively equivalent to the passive of the hiphil verb “hand over [in response to a request];” hence the translation “dedicated.” The hiphil verb occurs in the first part of 1 Sam 1:28: “And I too have handed him over (‫ )השאלתהו‬to YHWH; all the days that he lives, he is dedicated (‫ )שאול‬to YHWH.” Because God has granted Hannah’s request, she responds by dedicating her son for service at the sanctuary. So too, Philo reports that Hannah “says that she gives her son, ‘Samuel, as a gift to the Holy One,’ not dedicating him more as a human being, than as a disposition full of inspiration, and possessed by a divinely sent impulse” (Somn. 1.254). 40 Similarly, Josephus describes Hannah’s action: “And the woman … delivered him to Eli, dedicating him to God to become a prophet” (Ant. 5.10.3 §347). It is interesting that whereas the Greek of Sir 46:13 omits the Hebrew depiction of Samuel as “dedicated from his mother’s womb,” both Philo and Pseudo-Philo give attention to the role of Hannah. 41 However, because the Syriac renders this clause of 46:13: “the one who was asked for from his mother’s womb,” it is also possible that the Hebrew pual participle in 46:13b means “asked for,” and hence “obtained by request.” 42 This interpretation follows 1 Sam 1:20: “Hannah conceived and bore a son, and she called his name Samuel, for [she said], ‘From YHWH I have asked him (‫)שאלתיו‬.’” Likewise, on the basis of 1 Sam 1:20 Josephus reports a comparable motif: “An

 38 SEGAL, Sēper, 321; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, Wisdom, 517-18; DEMITRÓW, Oranti, 149 n. 137. For the translation: “pledged in a vow from his mother’s womb,” see SKEHAN/DI LELLA, Wisdom, 516. 39 SEGAL, Sēper, 321. 40 All translations of Philo in this article are taken from YONGE, Philo. 41 FELDMAN, Scrolls, 9, 30. 42 SKEHAN/DI LELLA, Wisdom, 517.

40  Jeremy Corley infant was born to them, whom they called Samuel, as one might say ‘asked of God’” (Ant. 5.10.3 §346). The reference in Sir 46:13b in that case is to Hannah’s intense prayer for a son in 1 Sam 1:11, where LXX and 4QSama preserve a longer text. According to 1 Sam 1:11 MT, Hannah’s vow states briefly: “I will give him to YHWH all the days of his life. No razor shall touch his head.” However, according to 1 Sam 1:11 LXX (partly preserved in 4QSama), Hannah promises: “I will set him before you as a given one [= nazirite?] until the day of his death. He shall drink neither wine nor intoxicants, and no razor shall touch his head.” 43 The qal verb (‫ )שאל‬also refers to Hannah’s praying elsewhere in First Samuel (1 Sam 1:17, 27), but whereas 1 Sam 2:20 MT has the qal verb, a hiphil verb appears in 4QSama. Thus, 1 Sam 2:20 MT reports Eli’s blessing of Elkanah: “‘May YHWH grant you offspring from this woman,’ in exchange for the request that he asked (‫ )שאל‬of YHWH.” Within 4QSama, however, 1 Sam 2:20 expresses Eli’s blessing differently: “May YHWH repay you with offspring from this woman in exchange for the requested gift that [she/you] lent to YHWH.” 44 The pual participle ‫ משואל‬has also been interpreted as “lent,” by analogy with the qal passive participle ‫( שאול‬understood as “lent”) in 1 Sam 1:28. 45 When Hannah dedicates her son to YHWH, the young Samuel is “lent” (‫)שאול‬, according to 1 Sam 1:28 MT: “And I too have handed him over (‫ )השאלתהו‬to YHWH; all the days that he lives, he is lent/dedicated (‫ )שאול‬to YHWH.” Other possible interpretations of the Hebrew participle (‫ )שאול‬would be “given over” or “pledged.” Indeed, 1 Sam 1:28 LXX [NETS] reports Hannah’s declaration about her son: “I lend him to the Lord as long as he lives, a loan to the Lord.” Nevertheless, this loan is permanent rather than temporary. However, because this word “lent” (‫ )שאול‬in 1 Sam 1:28 is identical to the name of Israel’s first king Saul, who will later be anointed by Samuel (1 Sam 10:1), some scholars have claimed that this story arose as an etiological narrative for the origin of Saul rather than Samuel. 46 While the name Saul (‫)שאול‬ means “asked for [from God],” the narrative plays on the fact that Saul is the king “asked for” by the people (1 Samuel 8). There is a curious paradox that whereas God favorably accepted Hannah’s request for a son (1 Sam 1:20), God was displeased when the people asked for a king (1 Sam 8:6), but perhaps the 43F

 43 ULRICH, Qumran Text, 39. 44 ULRICH, Qumran Text, 72-73. 45 VAN PEURSEN, Verbal System, 221; DEMITRÓW, Oranti, 150. 46 MCCARTER, I Samuel, 62-66. However, perhaps this view does not attribute sufficient subtlety to the Hebrew narrative, which also plays here on the similar-sounding name Shiloh (1 Sam 1:3, 24).

No Small Difference When Introducing Samuel in Sirach 46:13  41

difference was the motive for asking (1 Sam 1:11; 8:7). Even though Sir 46:13b echoes the sound of the name Saul (‫)שאול‬, Ben Sira does not later name the unfavored king, instead referring to him with titles from 1 Sam 12:1-3: “his anointed” (46:19b) and “the king” (46:20b). Elsewhere in the Praise of the Ancestors the sage plays on the Hebrew name of other characters: 44:19 (Abraham); 44:23g (Moses); 46:1 (Joshua); 47:13 (Solomon); 47:23 (Rehoboam); 47:23/48:4 (Elijah); 48:17 (Hezekiah); 48:20 (Isaiah); and 49:6-7 (Jeremiah of Anathoth). 47 At the start of chapter 46, Ben Sira utilizes the term ‫“( תשועה‬salvation, deliverance”) to create a word play on the name ‫“( יהושע‬Joshua”), which is often linked with the root ‫“( ישע‬save, deliver”). A similar interpretation occurs in Philo’s explanatory comment on Num 13:16 (Mut. 122): “Joshua means ‘the salvation of the Lord.’” The sage later plays on the same root ‫“( ישע‬save, deliver”) when reporting the divine deliverance of the people of Jerusalem through Isaiah (48:20): “And he saved them (‫ )ויושיעם‬by the hand of Isaiah (‫)ישעיהו‬.” There is also a subtle word play on the name of Elijah (‫)אליהו‬, which displays assonance with a phrase in 47:23 describing Jeroboam son of Nebat: “Until he arose—let there be no (‫ יהי‬- ‫ )אל‬remembrance for him.” Finally, the indirect word play on Jeremiah is based on his unnamed home town of Anathoth (‫ – ענתות‬Jer 1:1), echoed in the expression: “they afflicted him” (‫ענוהו‬ –Sir 49:7). Name of Character in Sir 44:1-50:24 Abraham (44:19) – assonance Moses (44:23) – assonance Joshua (46:1) – root play Samuel (46:13) – metathesis Solomon (47:13) – assonance Rehoboam (47:23) – divided word

Elijah (47:23/48:4) – assonance Hezekiah (48:17, 22) – root play Isaiah (48:20) – root play Jeremiah (49:6-7) [of Anathoth; cf. Jer 1:1] – assonance

 47 SMEND, Weisheit, xlii.

Hebrew Word Play “Abraham was ancestor of a multitude of nations” (cf. Gen 17:5) “Finding favor in the eyes of everyone living” “A great salvation for his chosen ones” “The one dedicated from his mother’s womb” “Solomon reigned in days of tranquillity” “Broad in folly and lacking in understanding, Rehoboam caused the people to rebel by his policy” “Until he arose—let there be no remembrance for him” “Hezekiah strengthened his city”; “He held strongly to the ways of David” “And he saved them by the hand of Isaiah” “By the hand of Jeremiah, for they afflicted him”

42  Jeremy Corley On the basis of a different etymology, another play on Samuel’s name appears in Philo. 48 In three passages, Philo interprets the prophet’s name to mean either “appointed by God” or “appointed to God.” In fact, Philo has interpreted the LXX form of the name in relation to the verbal form śām (“placed, appointed”) from the Hebrew verb ‫“( שׂים‬put, place”), perhaps in the phrase ‫ אל‬- ‫“( שׂמו‬God appointed him”). 49 Because Greek does not have an equivalent to the Hebrew letter šin, Philo has interpreted the name as if it began with the letter śin. Twice Philo states: “The name Samuel, being interpreted, means ‘appointed by God’” (Deus 1.5; Ebr.144), and once Philo asserts: “The name Samuel, being interpreted, means ‘appointed to God’” (Somn. 1.254). However, a variant interpretation of Samuel’s name appears in Pseudo-Philo, where it is interpreted as “mighty one” (LAB 51:1). Daniel Harrington’s footnote here explains that this interpretation is “based on the possible division of ‘Samuel’ in Hebrew as ‫אל‬-‫ שׁמו‬meaning ‘his name is El (the Mighty One).” 50 49F

6 Nazirite of YHWH Sirach 46:13 First Samuel

First century CE texts

Hebrew & Syriac: Nazirite Greek: -[Implied in 1 Sam 1:11 MT] Given one(1 Sam 1:11 LXX) Nazirite (1 Sam 1:22 in 4QSama) Philo: Gift (Somn. 1.253-254) Josephus: [Implied in Ant. 5.10.3 §347]

Unlike the MT of First Samuel, Ben Sira here applies to Samuel the rare title of nazirite, also found in 1 Sam 1:22 according to the first-century BCE manuscript 4QSama: “[And] I will give him as a nazirite forever all the days of [his life].” 51 Eugene Ulrich has also suggested that the fragmentary text of 4QSama may originally have had the term “nazirite” in 1 Sam 1:11, where the Greek text has  48 GRABBE, Etymology, 200-201. 49 FELDMAN, Scrolls, 8-9.For a similar confusion between the Hebrew letters šin and śin, see Judg 12:6 (shibboleth = stream or wheat-ear, sometimes pronounced sibboleth). 50 HARRINGTON, Pseudo-Philo, 365 n. 51a. All quotations of Pseudo-Philo (= The Book of Biblical Antiquities) are here taken from Harrington’s translation. 51 ULRICH, Qumran Text, 40; MCCARTER, I Samuel, 56; CHEPEY, Nazirites, 20-22 (4QSama); 40-42 (Sir 46:13).

No Small Difference When Introducing Samuel in Sirach 46:13  43

the Septuagintal hapax δοτός (“given one”). 52 Although the MT of First Samuel does not specifically call Samuel a nazirite, such a lifestyle is nevertheless implied in Hannah’s promise before his birth: “No razor shall touch his head” (1 Sam 1:11 MT; cf. Judg 13:5). Kyle McCarter comments: “In spite of the loss of the specification of his nazirite status in MT, post-biblical Jewish tradition remembered Samuel as a nazirite, as reflected in the Hebrew fragments to Sir 46:13 … and in the Talmudic tractate Nazir 9.5.” 53 Within the tractate Nazir, the Mishnah declares: “According to R. Nehorai, Samuel was a nazirite, for it is written, ‘And there shall no razor come upon his head’ [1 Sam 1:11]…. The razor spoken of concerning Samuel means that he was to be a nazirite” (m. Naz. 9.5). 54 Interestingly, the other Mishnaic reference to Samuel in tractate Taanit also parallels Ben Sira as well as First Samuel, since Taan. 2.4 mentions a blessing given at times of fasting: “May he that answered Samuel at Mizpah answer you and hearken to the voice of your crying this day.” The fragmentary Hebrew text of Sir 46:16-18 alludes to Samuel’s intercessory sacrifice during the battle at Mizpah (1 Sam 7:7-9). At Mizpah, he called on God, offered up a suckling lamb, and after the divine response he subdued enemy garrisons. The divine answer is narrated in 1 Sam 7:9: “And Samuel cried to YHWH on behalf of Israel, and YHWH answered him” (cf. Ps 99:6). The figure of the nazirite was sometimes connected with prophecy. Ben Sira’s depiction of Samuel as “a nazirite of YHWH in prophecy” is reminiscent of the paralleling of “prophet” and “nazirite” in Amos 2:11. Indeed, Amos 2:11 may presuppose a reference to Samuel, who was both prophet and nazirite. 55 Interestingly, Josephus interprets a nazirite as a prophet: “And the woman … delivered him to Eli, dedicating him to God to become a prophet; so his locks were left to grow and his drink was water” (Ant. 5.10.3 §347). 56 Likewise, Josephus also presents Samson as a “prophet,” evidently meaning nazirite (Ant. 5.8.4 §285). 57 While Philo speaks elsewhere of the custom of the nazirite vow (Spec. 1.249254), his treatises indirectly suggest that he knew the tradition of Samuel being a nazirite. Philo states that Samuel “drank no wine or intoxicating liquors to the  52 So ULRICH, Qumran Text, 39-40; against MCCARTER, I Samuel, 53-54. However, it is possible that δοτός could represent “given one” (‫ )נתין‬rather than “nazirite” (‫)נזיר‬. 53 MCCARTER, I Samuel, 61. 54 All quotations from the Mishnah are here taken from DANBY, Mishnah. 55 MAYS, Amos, 52. 56 BEGG, Flavius Josephus, vol. 4, 88; CHEPEY, Nazirites, 67-68. 57 ULRICH, Qumran Text, 166.

44  Jeremy Corley day of his death” (Ebr.143; cf. 1 Sam 1:11 LXX). Just as 1 Sam 1:11 LXX calls Samuel a “given one” (δοτός), so Philo designates him as a “gift” (Somn. 1.254), immediately after referring to the nazirite vow (Somn. 1.253; echoing Num 6:5). The juxtaposition of the stories of Samson and Samuel in the Hebrew Former Prophets serves to highlight the difference between the unfaithful nazirite Samson (unmentioned by Ben Sira) and the observant nazirite Samuel. Indeed, the Mishnaic tractate Nazir declares: “As the razor spoken of concerning Samson [Judg 13:5] means that he was to be a nazirite, so the razor spoken of concerning Samuel [1 Sam 1:11] means that he was to be a nazirite” (m. Naz. 9.5). Ben Sira’s phrase “from his mother’s womb” (Sir 46:13) hints at a contrast with Samson’s statement in Judg 16:17: “A razor has not come upon my head, because I have been God’s nazirite from my mother’s womb” (cf. Judg 13:5, 7). Ben Sira’s celebration of Samuel as a proper nazirite (46:13c) implies a contrast with Samson who did not keep the obligations of the nazirite vow (Num 6:1-12), famously permitting his hair to be cut (Judg 16:19).

7 In prophecy Sir 46:13

First Samuel

First century CE texts

Hebrew: In prophecy (Visionary in 46:15) Syriac: In prophecy (46:15 absent) Greek: A prophet of the Lord (Prophet also in 46:15) Prophet (1 Sam 3:20 MT/LXX); Seer (1 Sam 9:19 MT but not 4QSama or LXX); Cf. LXX 1 Chr 10:13: “Samuel the prophet” (not in MT) Philo: “The greatest of the kings and prophets” (Ebr. 143); Prophet (Somn. 1.254) Josephus: Prophet (e.g., Ant. 5.10.1 §340; 5.10.3 §347; 6.2.1 §19) Pseudo-Philo: Prophet (e.g., LAB 49:7-8; 50:8; 51:6-7; 57:4) New Testament: “All the prophets from Samuel” (Acts 3:24); “He gave judges until the time of the prophet Samuel” (Acts 13:20)

Ben Sira’s connection of Samuel with prophecy evokes the best-known aspect of his identity within First Samuel and other Jewish texts. After the call of Samuel, 1 Sam 3:20 says: “And all Israel from Dan to Beersheba knew that Samuel was

No Small Difference When Introducing Samuel in Sirach 46:13  45

trustworthy as a prophet for YHWH.” Philo even dubs Samuel “the greatest of the kings and prophets” (Ebr. 143). Moreover, Pseudo-Philo states that “Eli the priest did not want to tell her [= Hannah] that a prophet had been foreordained to be born from her” (LAB 50:8). Pseudo-Philo then reports that Samuel was anointed at a young age: “They came to Eli the priest and brought to him Samuel. And they stood Samuel before the Lord, anointed him, and said, ‘Let the prophet live among the people, and may he be a light to this nation for a long time!’” (LAB 51:7). While the Greek of Sir 46:13 agrees with Josephus in recognizing Samuel’s prophetic role (e.g., Ant. 5.10.1 §340; 5.10.3 §347), Louis Feldman asserts that the historian designates Samuel as a prophet forty-five times. 58 Just as the Greek text of Sir 46:15 says of Samuel: “By his reliability he was proved accurate as a prophet,” Josephus echoes 1 Sam 3:19-20 when he reports: “All that he prophesied was seen to come true” (Ant. 5.10.4 §351). At the end of Sir 46:13-20, the final verse envisages the dead Samuel speaking from the earth “in prophecy,” announcing David’s future success and Saul’s imminent death in battle (1 Sam 28:18-19). Different language occurs in the fragmentary Hebrew of Sir 46:15: “For [his faithfulness he was] sought out as a visionary (‫)חזה‬.” The consultation of a seer is mentioned in 1 Sam 9:9: “Formerly in Israel, thus said someone when he went to consult God: ‘Come, and let us go to the seer (‫)הראה‬.’” The MT prefers the synonym “seer” (‫– רואה‬1 Sam 9:11, 18, 19), and avoids the alternative participle “visionary” (‫ )חזה‬when speaking of Samuel. A Qumran text (4Q160), dubbed “The Vision of Samuel,” rewrites the story of Samuel’s call from God (1 Sam 3:14-18) and mentions “the vision (‫ )מראה‬of/from God” (4Q160 1.5; cf. 1 Sam 3:15). 59 Similarly, Pseudo-Philo depicts Samuel saying: “I am the one who sees” (LAB 56:4; cf. 1 Sam 9:19). The Hebrew word “in prophecy” (‫)בנבואה‬, serving as an inclusio for the pericope (Sir 46:13, 20), may have implications beyond the fact that Samuel played a prophetic role. This expression also has a canonical sense, since Sirach 46:149:10 alludes to all eight books of the Former and Latter Prophets in their Hebrew canonical order. 60 While the book that bears Samuel’s name is included in the Former Prophets, the Book of Joshua also belongs to the Former Prophets, and hence the figure of Joshua is also depicted with the same Hebrew word “in prophecy” (46:1). 58F

59F

 58 FELDMAN, Josephus’ Interpretation, 491. 59 FELDMAN, Scrolls, 49-53. 60 CORLEY, Structure, 46.

46  Jeremy Corley While the paralleling of Moses and Samuel as intercessors already appears in the biblical tradition (Ps 99:6; Jer 15:1; cf. 3 Enoch 48A:5-7), several further resemblances exist between Samuel and Moses as prophetic and priestly figures who also fulfilled a role of civic leadership. 61 Both figures had the titles of “prophet” (Deut 34:10; 1 Sam 3:20) and “man of God” (Deut 33:1; 1 Sam 9:6). Dale Allison observes further similarities in the biblical narratives. 62 Samuel also called Israel away from its idolatry (1 Sam 7:3-4; cf. Exodus 32) and anointed others (1 Sam 10:1 [Saul]; 16:13 [David]; cf. Lev 8:1-13 [Moses anoints Aaron]); he was a holy war leader (1 Sam 7:7-14; cf. Deut 2:33-36) and renewed the covenant (1 Sam 7:3-6; cf. Deut 31:9-13); he also wrote legislation for the king (1 Sam 10:25; cf. Deuteronomy 17) and, in a farewell speech, set before the people the two ways of obedience and disobedience (1 Samuel 12; cf. Deuteronomy 28-30).

Developing the earlier biblical tradition, Ben Sira includes several features shared between Moses (45:1-5) and Samuel (46:13-20). According to the Hebrew text, they both commanded the people (45:3; 46:14) and heard God’s voice (45:5; 46:17). According to the Greek text, both were beloved by God (45:1; 46:13) and showed fidelity (45:4; 46:15). In a comparable fashion, Pseudo-Philo compares Moses and Samuel for both being priestly figures (LAB 51:6), hearing God’s voice (LAB 53:2), and testifying to their innocence in a farewell speech (LAB 57:2). 63 In addition, such paralleling is later developed in Midrash Psalms Rabbah 1:3: “The one was a Levite, and the other was a Levite. The one built an altar, and the other built an altar. The one brought offerings, and the other brought offerings…. The one was summoned by a call from God, and the other was summoned by a call from God.” 64

8 Judge Sir 46:13 First Samuel First century CE texts

Hebrew & Syriac: Judge Greek: He judged (46:14) He judged(1 Sam 7:16-17 MT & LXX) Philo: “the greatest of the kings and prophets” (Ebr. 143) Josephus: He judged (Ant. 6.3.1 §31)

 61 PERDUE, Prophets, 144. 62 ALLISON, Moses, 31. 63 ALLISON, Moses, 34. 64 ALLISON, Moses, 33-34.

No Small Difference When Introducing Samuel in Sirach 46:13  47

NT: “He gave judges until the time of the prophet Samuel” (Acts 13:20) Ben Sira’s identification of Samuel as a judge matches a common feature found elsewhere in First Samuel and other Jewish writings. This designation echoes 1 Sam 7:15: “And Samuel judged Israel all the days of his life.” Since Samuel was the last in the biblical category of judges, Ben Sira includes him in a poem of 16 bicola together with the other unnamed judges (46:11-20). 65 It is ironic that Ben Sira speaks of the judges, “each one by his name,” but he does not actually specify the name of any of them, whereas he names Samuel and even makes a word play on his name. Here is an English translation of the Hebrew text of 46:11-12, with 46:12a supplied by analogy with 49:10b. And the judges, each one by his name, Every one that did not lift up his heart, 11c And did not turn away from following God— May their memory be as a blessing! 12a [May their bones be flourishing in place of them,] And may their name be a replacement for their sons. 11a

Where the Genizah manuscript of 46:14b (followed by G and S) has the phrase “God of Jacob,” many commentators emend it to “tents of Jacob” and understand the grammatical subject as Samuel rather than God. 66 If we accept this emendation of 46:14b (“And he visited the tents of Jacob”), there is a reference to Samuel’s activities as a kind of circuit judge in Israel, as described in 1 Sam 7:16-17. 67 Similarly, Josephus echoes 1 Sam 7:16 in speaking of Samuel touring the cities to judge disputed cases: “The prophet Samuel… judged their causes and so continued for long to administer perfect justice” (Ant. 6.3.1 §31). Other Jewish texts interpret Samuel’s role of judging in connection with his function as prophet or even king. For example, Philo calls Samuel “the greatest of the kings and prophets” (Ebr. 143). In Pseudo-Philo we read that “his [= Elkanah’s] son who will be born from him—he will rule among you and prophesy” (LAB 49:7). Such a view also appears in the later Midrash Psalms Rabbah 1:3, which compares Moses with Samuel: “The one became king, and the other be 65 The size of 16 bicola in the poem on the judges and Samuel (46:11-20) matches the length of the poem on David (47:2-11) and the passage on Solomon (47:12-22); cf. CORLEY, Structure, 59. 66 SMEND, Weisheit, 445; SEGAL, Sēper, 322; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, Wisdom, 518. 67 SKEHAN/DI LELLA, Wisdom, 518.

48  Jeremy Corley came king.” 68 Nevertheless, the Hebrew Bible avoids the title “king” for both Moses and Samuel, despite their roles in national leadership.

9 Officiating priest Sir 46:13

First Samuel First century CE texts

Hebrew: Priest or priestly officiant Syriac: Priest Greek: -[Implied in 1 Sam 7:9-10; 9:12-13; 10:8; 16:5] Josephus: [Implied in Ant. 6.2.2 §25-26] Pseudo-Philo: [Implied in LAB 51:6, quoting Ps 99:6]

Whereas the MT of First Samuel often depicts Samuel offering sacrifices (1 Sam 7:9-10; 9:12-13; 10:8; 16:5), it never employs the root ‫“( כהן‬be priest”) for his activity. Although the genealogy of Heman the temple singer in 1 Chr 6:18-23 (NRSV 6:33-38) traces Samuel’s ancestry back to Levi’s grandson Kohath through the line of Korah, and 1 Chr 6:11-13 (NRSV 6:26-28) also views Samuel as a Levite, Ben Sira does not mention this aspect. 69 Indeed, Ben Sira’s nonmention of his Levitical status matches his general omission of references to the Levites. 70 However, Josephus identifies Alkanas (= Elkanah) as a “Levite” (Ant. 5.10.2 §342) because of the genealogy in the MT of 1 Chr 6:11-13. Note that Josephus calls Eli “the high priest” (Ant. 5.10.1 §338) where First Samuel calls him simply Eli “the priest” (1 Sam 1:9). It is possible that Ben Sira employs the piel participle (“officiating priest”) rather than the qal participle (“priest”) because Samuel is not descended from Aaron, especially if we follow Wright’s suggestion that “Ben Sira articulates a view that the priesthood belongs to all the sons of Aaron.” 71 68F

69 F

70F

 68 ALLISON, Moses, 34. 69 However, 1 Sam 1:1 calls Samuel’s father an “Ephrathite,” interpreted by some to mean “Ephraimite” (MCCARTER, I Samuel, 58), though others understand it to mean a person from Bethlehem in Judah (1 Sam 17:12); cf. LEUCHTER, Jeroboam, 60-61. 70 Wright speaks of Ben Sira’s complete silence about the Levites (Watchers, 243), although the Genizah MS of Sir 45:6 describes Aaron as belonging to “the tribe of Levi.” Note that the Greek Testament of Levi (date uncertain) states that the priesthood was given to Levi (T. Levi 5:2). 71 WRIGHT, Watchers, 253.

No Small Difference When Introducing Samuel in Sirach 46:13  49

We could wonder whether Samuel’s activity fits only the role of a Levite, or whether it involves a fully priestly function. When the boy Samuel is portrayed as ministering to YHWH as a young assistant of the priest Eli at Shiloh (1 Sam 2:11), he could be seen as fulfilling the function of a Levite. Later the adult Samuel is depicted as offering sacrifices (1 Sam 7:9-10; 9:12-13; 10:8; 16:5; cf. Sir 46:16), which would generally be viewed as the role of a priest. Most prominently, 1 Sam 7:9 reports: “And Samuel took one suckling lamb and offered it up as a whole burned offering to YHWH, and Samuel cried to YHWH on behalf of Israel.” 72 Sirach 46:16 recalls this incident: “And he too called on God, when there was pressure for him, with his enemies on every side, when he offered up a suckling lamb.” 73 In describing the battle with the Philistines, Josephus also narrates Samuel’s offering of sacrifice: “Taking a suckling lamb, he sacrificed it on behalf of the throng and besought God” (Ant. 6.2.2 §25). Whereas the offering of sacrifices would typically be regarded as a priestly function, Deut 33:10 and Ezra 6:20 may suggest the role of Levites in offering sacrifice. Indeed, Midrash Psalms Rabbah 1:3 parallels Moses and Samuel as Levites who offered sacrifice: “The one was a Levite, and the other was a Levite. The one built an altar, and the other built an altar. The one brought offerings, and the other brought offerings…. The one was summoned by a call from God, and the other was summoned by a call from God.” 74 Indeed, there is discussion among the rabbis whether or not sacrificing makes someone a priest. 75 Because there is some doubt whether the Hebrew participle ‫ מכהן‬denotes a “priest” or “priestly officiant,” the ambiguity is indicated by my translation “officiating priest.” According to Skehan and Di Lella, the sage “does not say of Samuel that he was a priest, but that he did perform priestly functions.” 76 On this view, the piel participle suggests that Samuel was not really a priest despite fulfilling a priestly role, by contrast with the qal participle (‫)כהן‬, used for the high priest Simeon (Sir 50:1). However, several scholars follow the Syriac by

 72 Some rabbinic texts suggest that this case was an exception when a non-priest was allowed to offer sacrifice; cf. GINZBERG, Legends, 228. 73 For this reconstruction of the fragmentary Hebrew text, see CORLEY, Portrait, 43; SEGAL, Sēper, 321. 74 ALLISON, Moses, 33-34. 75 GINZBERG, Legends, 228. 76 SKEHAN/DI LELLA, Wisdom, 518. Cf. SMEND, Weisheit, 445; PETERS, Sirach, 398; SEGAL, Sēper, 322; BEENTJES, Prophets, 213; MARBÖCK, Samuel, 209; VAN PEURSEN, Verbal System, 221 n. 120; DEMITRÓW, Oranti, 122.

50  Jeremy Corley interpreting the piel participle to mean “priest.” 77 Indeed, Sir 45:15 employs the piel infinitive for Aaron’s role in God’s service: “to minister and to officiate as priest to him,” and the Torah employs the piel verb of the Aaronic priesthood (as in Exod 28:35; 29:1; Deut 10:6) without any negative implications. Interestingly, the Apostolic Constitutions (a Christian text from around the 3rd century CE) seems to preserve a Hellenistic synagogal prayer, addressing God as “the one choosing for yourself Samuel, to be a priest and a prophet” (Apos. Con. 8.5.14). 78 The refusal of the MT of First Samuel to name Samuel a “priest” (although an associated verb “to minister” appears in 1 Sam 2:11, 18; 3:1) serves to differentiate him from the doomed house of Eli (1 Sam 2:27-36; 14:3; 1 Kgs 2:27), as well as from the rising house of Zadok. In place of a descendant of Eli, the prophecy in 1 Samuel 2 promises the coming of a “faithful priest” (1 Sam 2:35). It is possible that originally Samuel was viewed as the fulfillment of this prophecy, since he is elsewhere called “faithful” (1 Sam 3:20; Sir 46:15), but within the canonical context presumably the text refers to David’s priest Zadok (2 Sam 8:17; 1 Kgs 1:39). 79Similarly, Josephus reports God’s words to Eli: “the priesthood shall pass to the house of Eleazar,” in other words, to Zadok (Ant. 5.10.4 §350), and indeed the Chronicler traces Zadok’s descent from Phinehas’ father Eleazar (1 Chr 5:3034 [NRSV 6:4-8]). It may be because Samuel is not a Zadokite that the MT of First Samuel does not give him the status of a priest, although he fulfills some priestlike roles. Here Ben Sira was probably influenced by Ps 99:6, which places Samuel in parallel to the priestly figures of Moses and Aaron: “Moses and Aaron were among his priests, and Samuel was among those who called on his name; they were calling on YHWH, and he himself would answer them.” While Sir 46:13 echoes Ps 99:6, Pseudo-Philo actually cites this verse in its rewriting of Hannah’s canticle (LAB 51:6): “Asaph prophesied in the wilderness about your son, saying, ‘Moses and Aaron were among his priests, and Samuel was there among them.’ Behold the word has been fulfilled, and the prophecy has come to pass.” Just as the Hebrew text of Sir 46:13 depicts Samuel as a priest (or priestly officiant), the whole Praise of the Ancestors celebrates further priestly characters, such as three high priests (Aaron, Phinehas, and Jeshua), three other prophets

 77 MACK, Wisdom, 34; LEE, Studies, 221; SAUER, Jesus Sirach / Ben Sira, 318; PERDUE, Prophets, 145. 78 FIENSY/DARNELL, Prayers, 688; cf. FELDMAN, Scrolls, 21. 79 DEMITRÓW, Oranti, 167 (Samuel); MCCARTER, I Samuel, 91-93 (Zadok).

No Small Difference When Introducing Samuel in Sirach 46:13  51

with a priestly ancestry (Moses, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel), and finally the high priest Simeon. In a special way, Samuel foreshadows Simeon the Just, who is praised in chapter 50 at the end of the Praise of the Ancestors. 80 Both priestly figures also held the role of civic leader of the people. While Samuel is recorded as interceding for the people, it is likely that Simeon also fulfilled this role, since 50:12-17 records his offering of sacrifice in the national temple. According to the Hebrew text, Samuel matches Simeon in having a priestly title (46:13; 50:1), in offering sacrifice (46:16; 50:11-13), and in protecting people from the enemy (46:18; 50:4). Thus, Samuel serves to foreshadow the high priest who is celebrated in chapter 50 of Ben Sira’s book. In an example of “no small difference” from the Genizah Hebrew text, the Greek version of 46:13 omits the description of Samuel as priest, perhaps because of a reserve toward the Jewish priesthood and sacrifices. 81 The Syriac includes mention of Samuel as priest in 46:13, but its antipathy to the Jewish priesthood and sacrifices appears elsewhere. 82

10 Establishing kingship and anointing rulers (46:13ef) The Genizah Hebrew text of Sir 46:13ef states: “By the [word] of God he established the kingship, and he anointed rulers over the people.” 83 Whereas the reconstructed Hebrew refers to God’s word, the Syriac alludes to Samuel’s word, while the Greek omits the opening mention of God’s word. The Greek translates: “He established a kingdom, and he anointed rulers over his people,” but the Syriac renders: “By whose word the kingdom was established, and he anointed rulers and kings for the people.” To clarify the recipients of anointing, Syriac offers a double translation: “rulers and kings.” Here Ben Sira refers to Samuel’s anointing of both Saul and David (1 Samuel 10 and 16). In fact, First Samuel joins the verb “anoint” and noun “ruler” only in

 80 LEE, Studies, 15-16. 81 MINISSALE, La versione greca, 222-224. Some changes in the Greek text by comparison with the Hebrew (e.g., 45:26; 50:23-24) may derive from the grandson’s attitude of caution toward the Hasmonean priestly rulers of his day. 82 VAN PEURSEN, Language and Interpretation, 79-84. 83 Lacuna in 46:13e restored according to SEGAL, Sēper, 321; DEMITRÓW, Oranti, 123.

52  Jeremy Corley reference to Saul (1 Sam 9:16; LXX 1 Sam 10:1). 84 For David, the verb “anoint” (1 Sam 16:13) and the title “ruler” (1 Sam 13:14; 25:30) appear in separate places, but Ben Sira has brought them together in 46:13f to speak also of David. In addition, Psalm 151 echoes 1 Sam 16:1-13 in celebrating Samuel’s anointing of David (11QPsa 28.8-9). According to Josephus (Ant. 7.1.4 §27), Abner affirms his belief that “God, through the prophet Samuel, had chosen David king of the Hebrews.” Within the biblical tradition, Samuel served as the “midwife” in the birth of the Israelite nation state. The century starting with his birth coincided with great social and political changes brought about by the monarchy (1 Sam 8:1118). As a result, tribal society was replaced by the nation state, charismatic leadership was superseded by institutional governance, and non-dynastic judges were replaced by a permanent royal line. 85 National taxation was introduced to pay for the new civil service. The tribal militia for times of crisis was replaced by a permanent standing army, and rule by local elders began to be replaced by a national civil service. Mobile leadership was superseded by a fixed capital city, and the mobile Ark of the Covenant came to be housed in a fixed sanctuary in Jerusalem. Thus, Samuel’s act of anointing first Saul and then David resulted in momentous social and political consequences for the people of Israel. Whereas Ben Sira does not name Saul, his presentations of Samuel and David exhibit some parallels in the Hebrew text. Both leaders called on God before battle (46:16; 47:5), and through them the foe was subdued (46:18; 47:7). The opening phrase describing Samuel, “friend of his people and acceptable to his Maker” (46:13a), is reminiscent of the Hebrew wording of 47:8, where David is depicted as “friend of his Maker” or “one loving his Maker” (cf. Deut 6:5).While Sir 46:13 reports of Samuel: “By the word of God he established the kingship (‫)ממלכת‬,” Sir 47:11 uses similar language to speak of God’s gift to David: “And he gave him the statute of kingship (‫)ממלכת‬, and established his throne over Jerusalem.” In this way, Samuel resembles Israel’s second king, whom he personally anointed. Nevertheless, the phrase “statute of kingship” (47:11) may suggest that Ben Sira downplays the Davidic covenant, applied to the monarchy, in favor of the everlasting priestly covenant with Phinehas (50:24). 86 85F

 84 While the echo in Sir 46:13f of 1 Sam 10:1 MT is weaker than of 1 Sam 9:16, a stronger echo appears of 1 Sam 10:1 LXX, believed by McCarter (cf. NRSV) to represent a more original textform; cf. MCCARTER, I Samuel, 166 and 171. 85 Cf. SAUER, Jesus Sirach / Ben Sira, 318. 86 WRIGHT, Tradition, 204; XERAVITS, Figure, 35.

No Small Difference When Introducing Samuel in Sirach 46:13  53

11 Conclusion While the Cairo Genizah text preserves three bicola for Sir 46:13, much of the verse is not represented in the Greek, which lacks any reference to Samuel as a nazirite and priest. There are several possible explanations for these textual divergences: the translator’s confusion at the opening of a new section of the Praise of the Ancestors (46:13a), scribal haplography (skipping from 46:13b to 46:13d), lack of interest in Hannah’s role (46:13b), and dislike for the priestly portrayal of Samuel (46:13d). Interpretation of Samuel’s name diverges between Ben Sira (who plays on the word “dedicated,” based on 1 Sam 1:28), Philo (who interprets it as either “appointed by God” or “appointed to God”) and PseudoPhilo (who understands it as “mighty one”). Several of the roles given by Ben Sira to Samuel are well known from the MT of First Samuel, especially as prophet and judge, establisher of the monarchy and anointer of rulers. Other aspects of Ben Sira’s portrait of Samuel are unusual. The opening double phrase, characterizing Samuel as “friend of his people and favored by his Maker,” combines a Hellenistic depiction of a national benefactor with a traditional Jewish view of someone chosen by God. His depiction as a nazirite matches 4QSama for 1 Sam 1:22 as well as the Mishnaic tractate Nazir, though this designation is absent from the MT of First Samuel, despite the mentioned prohibition of hair cutting (1 Sam 1:11 MT; cf. Num 6:5). While Samuel was an apprentice of the Levitical priest Eli (1 Sam 2:11, 28 MT) and offered sacrifice at a time of national crisis (1 Sam 7:9-10; cf. Sir 46:16), the MT of First Samuel never specifically calls him a priest, but Ben Sira’s portrayal of Samuel as a priest or officiating priest draws out the implication of Ps 99:6. Interestingly, Ben Sira links Samuel with Aaron by using the participle of the same piel verb (“serve as priest”), previously applied to Aaron in 45:15. In the process, Ben Sira increases Samuel’s resemblance to the priestly figure of Simeon II, honored at the conclusion of the Praise of the Ancestors. 87

 87 I offer this article in tribute to Benjamin Wright, who has contributed so much to the study of Ben Sira and the Septuagint. I wish to thank Maurice Gilbert and Bradley C. Gregory for helpful comments on a draft of this article.

54  Jeremy Corley

Bibliography ALLISON, Dale C., The New Moses: A Matthean Typology, Edinburgh 1993. BEENTJES, Pancratius C., The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew (VTSup 68), Leiden 1997. BEENTJES, Pancratius C., Prophets and Prophecy in the Book of Ben Sira, in: idem,“Happy the One who Meditates on Wisdom” (Sir. 14,20): Collected Essays on the Book of Ben Sira (CBET 43), Leuven 2006, 207-229. BEGG, Christopher, Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, vol. 4: Judean Antiquities Books 5-7, Leiden 2005. BEN-HAYYIM, Zeev (ed.), The Book of Ben Sira: Text, Concordance, and an Analysis of the Vocabulary, Jerusalem 1973. CALDUCH-BENAGES, Núria, The Absence of Named Women from Ben Sira’s Praise of the Ancestors, in: J. Corley and H. van Grol (eds.), Rewriting Biblical History: Essays on Chronicles and Ben Sira in Honor of Pancratius C. Beentjes (DCLS 7), Berlin 2011, 301-317. CALDUCH-BENAGES, Núria, et al., Wisdom of the Scribe: Diplomatic Edition of the Syriac Version of the Book of Ben Sira according to Codex Ambrosianus (2nd ed.), Estella 2015. CHEPEY, Chepey, Nazirites in Late Second Temple Judaism (AGAJU 60), Leiden 2005. COHEN, Naomi G., Philo’s Scriptures (JSJSup 123), Leiden 2007. CORLEY, Jeremy, A Numerical Structure in Sirach 44:1-50:24: CBQ 69 (2007) 43-63. CORLEY, Jeremy, The Portrait of Samuel in Hebrew Ben Sira 46:13-20, in: H. Lichtenberger and U. Mittmann-Richert (eds.), Biblical Figures in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature (DCLY 2008), Berlin 2009, 31-56. CORLEY, Jeremy, Sirach 44:1-15 as Introduction to the Praise of the Ancestors, in: G.G. Xeravits and J. Zsengellér (eds.), Studies in the Book of Ben Sira (JSJSup 127), Leiden 2008, 151181. DANBY, Herbert, The Mishnah, Oxford 1933. DEMITRÓW, Andrzej, Quattro Oranti nell’Elogio dei Padri (Sir 44-49): Studio dei Testi e delle Tradizioni (Opolska Biblioteka Teologiczna 124), Opole 2011. FELDMAN, Ariel, The Dead Sea Scrolls Rewriting Samuel and Kings (BZAW 469), Berlin 2015. FELDMAN, Louis H., Josephus’ Interpretation of the Bible, Berkeley 1998. FIENSY, D. A. / DARNELL, D. R., Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers, in: J.H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2, New York 1985, 671-697. GINZBERG, Louis, Legends of the Jews, vol. 6, Philadelphia 1928. GOSHEN-GOTTSTEIN, Alon, Ben Sira’s Praise of the Fathers: A Canon-Conscious Reading, in: R. Egger-Wenzel (ed.), Ben Sira’s God (BZAW 321), Berlin 2002, 235-267. GRABBE, Lester, Etymology in Early Jewish Interpretation: The Hebrew Names in Philo (BJS 115) Atlanta 1988. HARRINGTON, Daniel J., Pseudo-Philo, in: J.H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2, New York 1985, 297-377. HAYWARD, C. T. Robert, Multum in Parvo: Ben Sira’s Portrayal of the Patriarch Joseph, in: J. Corley and V. Skemp (eds.), Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit (CBQMS 38), Washington 2005, 185-200. HENGEL, Martin, Judaism and Hellenism (2 vols.), London 1974. HORST, P. W. van der, Ancient Jewish Epitaphs (CBET 2), Kampen 1991. LEE, Thomas R., Studies in the Form of Sirach 44-50 (SBLDS 75), Atlanta 1986. LEUCHTER, Mark, Jeroboam the Ephratite: JBL 125 (2006) 51-72.

No Small Difference When Introducing Samuel in Sirach 46:13  55

MACK, Burton L., Wisdom and the Hebrew Epic: Ben Sira's Hymn in Praise of the Fathers (CSHJ), Chicago 1985. MARBÖCK, Johannes, Samuel der Prophet: Sein Bild im Väterlob Sir 46,13-20, in: S. GillmayrBucher et al. (eds.), Ein Herz so weit wie der Sand am Ufer des Meeres (ETS 90), Würzburg 2006, 205-217. MAYS, James L., Amos (OTL) London 1969. MCCARTER, P. Kyle, I Samuel (AB 8), Garden City 1980. MINISSALE, Antonino, La Versione Greca del Siracide (AnBib 133) Rome 1995. PARRY, Donald W., Retelling Samuel: Echoes of the Books of Samuel in the Dead Sea Scrolls: RevQ 17 (1996) 293-306. PERDUE, Leo G., Ben Sira and the Prophets, in: J. Corley and V. Skemp (eds.), Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit (CBQMS 38), Washington 2005, 132-154. PETERS, Norbert, Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder Ecclesiasticus (EHAT 25), Münster 1913. PETRAGLIO, Renzo, Il libro che contamina le mani: Ben Sirac rilegge il libro e la storia d’Israele (Theologia 4), Palermo 1993. PETRAGLIO, Renzo, Le Siracide et l’Ancien Testament: relecture et tendances: Apocrypha 8 (1997) 287-304. PEURSEN, Wido T. van, The Verbal System in the Hebrew Text of Ben Sira (SSLL 41), Leiden 2004. PEURSEN, Wido T. van, Language and Interpretation in the Syriac Text of Ben Sira: A Comparative Linguistic and Literary Study (Monographs of the Peshitta Institute 16), Leiden 2007. SAUER, Georg, Jesus Sirach / Ben Sira (ATDA 1), Göttingen 2000. SEGAL, Moshe Z., Sēper ben-Sîrā’ haššālēm (3rd ed.), Jerusalem 1972. SKEHAN, Patrick W. / DI LELLA, Alexander A., The Wisdom of Ben Sira (AB 39), New York 1987. SMEND, Rudolf, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, Berlin 1906. ULRICH, Eugene C., The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus (HSM 19), Chico 1978. THACKERAY, H. St. J. / MARCUS, Ralph, Josephus, vol. 5: Jewish Antiquities Books V-VIII (LCL) London 1934. WRIGHT, Benjamin G., No Small Difference: Sirach’s Relationship to Its Hebrew Parent Text (SBLSCS 26), Atlanta 1989. WRIGHT, Benjamin G., Ben Sira and the Book of the Watchers on the Legitimate Priesthood, in: J. Corley and V. Skemp (eds.), Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit (CBQMS 38), Washington 2005, 241-254. WRIGHT, Benjamin G., Wisdom of Iesous son of Sirach, in: NETS, 715-762. WRIGHT, Benjamin G., The Use and Interpretation of Biblical Tradition in Ben Sira’s Praise of the Ancestors, in: G.G. Xeravits and J. Zsengellér (eds.), Studies in the Book of Ben Sira (JSJSup 127), Leiden 2008, 183-207. XERAVITS, Géza G., The Figure of David in the Book of Ben Sira: Henoch 23 (2001) 27-38. YONGE, C. D., The Works of Philo, Peabody 1993. ZIEGLER, Joseph, Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach (Septuaginta 12/2, 2nd ed.), Göttingen 1980.

József Zsengellér

David in the Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum Reshaping the Contemporary Cultural Memory Abstract: The story and figure of David were remembered by several Hellenistic Jewish writings. The individual features in the single texts form a common picture (cultural memory) in two different periods. The first period lasts until the end of the second century BCE, the second one spans from the first century BCE to the first century CE. This paper seeks to answer the question as to what degree does the depiction of David in the LAB of Pseudo-Philo depend on the cultural memory of this period, and furthermore, in what way did this text shape the cultural memory of Pseudo-Philo’s time? Keywords: David, Pseudo-Philo, Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, cultural memory

1 Introduction As Jan Assmann put it: “Seen as an individual and as a social capacity, memory is not simply the storage of past ‘facts’ but the ongoing work of reconstructive imagination. In other words, the past cannot be stored but always has to be ‘processed’ and mediated.” 1 Therefore it is not surprising that King David, as one of the most popular figures of the Old Testament, is remembered and depicted in numerous works of the Hellenistic-Roman period. When the author of Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum 2 started to rethink the history of his people, the story of David was already rewritten by the Chronicles, as well as reformulated by the LXX, the first Targumim, by the so called Hellenistic Jewish writers, and was reflected in writings like the Book of Ben Sira, in addition to several texts and fragments from Qumran, the Books of the Maccabees, Philo, the Psalms of Solomon and in many others. In dealing with cultural memory, although the individual features of certain writings dedicated to a specific topic are crucial for creating a cultural impact in a given time period, nevertheless, it is the effect of these texts on the collective  1 ASSMANN, Moses the Egyptian, 14. 2 KISCH, Pseudo-Philo; WADSWORTH, Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum; JACOBSON, Commentary.

https://doi.org/10.1515/ 9783110596373-004

David in the Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum  57

memory of that period that determine the real extent of their influence. Thus the story and figure of David, as remembered by the Hellenistic Jewish writings, show several individual features in the single texts, but there is a common picture emerging from them that can be called the cultural memory of David in the Hellenistic-Roman period. In this paper, we seek to answer the question as to what degree does the depiction of David in the LAB of Pseudo-Philo depend on the cultural memory of this period, and furthermore, in what way did this text shape the cultural memory of Pseudo-Philo’s time?

2 David in the cultural memory of the HellenisticRoman period I. Panc Beentjes calls attention to the various ways David is portrayed in this period, “since every author creates his own view of David.” 3 Though there could have been some central idea organizing the way by which these individual views were incorporated into the collective memory of this period. According to Yuzuru Miura, two epochs of Hellenistic interpretation can be discerned in the history of the interpretation of David: the first is the period lasts until the end of the second century BCE, the second period spans from the first century BCE to the first century CE. 4 The interpretation of the first epoch was known in the second epoch and more or less influenced its interpretation. First, we deal with the first one, then take a look at the rewriting of Pseudo-Philo, and finally, we compare its presentation with the interpretation of the second epoch it belongs to. The figure of David in the writings of the first epoch are influenced mainly by the later biblical books and predominantly by the Chronicles. 5 This is the idealized historical figure of David. This idealization is achieved through the omission of David’s struggle with Saul (Sir 47:3-7); by emphasizing David’s political identity with Israel (David as warrior: Sir 47:3-7, Eup. 30:3-4); by calling part of Jerusalem the city of David (1 Macc 1:33, 2:31, 7:32, 14:36); and through the emphasis on David’s religious identity with Israel (David as cult founder: Sir 47:8-10, 1 Esd. 1:4.15, 5:57, 8:48; David’s desire for the temple construction: Eup. 30:5-8); and by showing David as a merciful man (1 Macc 2:57). And also by  3 BEENTJES, Portrays of David, 179. 4 MIURA, David in Luke-Acts, 68. Cf. also JARICK, Seven Things. 5 This list is based on MIURA, David in Luke-Acts, 67–68.

58  József Zsengellér describing David as a man of prayer (Sir 47:5); whose sins have been forgiven by God (Sir 47:11). Other previous traditions of David include those in the Samuel books: God’s election of David (Sir 47:2); those in the Books of Kings: David as a model of later Judean kings (Sir 48:22, 49:4); in the book of Psalms: David praises God as a psalmist (Sir 47:8); he is also described as the author of the Psalms (11Q5); and also of the prophetic books: the eschatological David is not only the historical ancestor but also the prototype of the royal eschatological protagonist/Messiah (CD vii 20-21, 4QFlor, 4QpIsaa frags. 8-10. 18). 6 We can conclude that in the cultural memory of the second century BCE David’s figure was very vivid. As the ideal historical king of Israel—not only as a leader but as a pious man—he became a person of reference concerning leadership: in the book of Ben Sira for the priesthood, in the other books (Eupolemus, 1 Maccabees) for the Hasmonaeans; in the Qumran literature for the Davidic (royal eschatological protagonist) Messiah. A special feature is added to this religious-political picture by emphasizing David’s musical and poetic abilities. He is seen as the representative author of the Psalms (2 Macc 2:13), 7 but not only of those in the later canonical collection but of all (11Q5 xxvii). The content of his psalms were applied to the life of Jewish individuals. Daly-Danton called this phenomenon “Davidicization.” 8

3 The LAB’s presentation of David Pseudo-Philo presents his version of the Bible starting with the creation leading up to the death of Saul—especially up to the very point where Chronicles starts—by citing selected short passages of the biblical texts and giving narrative or dialogical texts and poetic compositions of his own. 9 The nature of the portion of the LAB concerning David is similar to the previous parts.

 6 See also BEENTJES, Portrays of David, 167–177. XERAVITS, The Figure of David; EVANS, David in the Dead Sea Scrolls; WACHOLDER, Eupolemus; FALLON, Eupolemus; MYERS, I. and II. Esdras, 23, 58, 81; GOLDSTEIN, I Maccabees, 240–241. MIURA, David, 44–55. 7 4QMMT mentions David as the name of reference of the third collection of scriptural books, but at least of the Psalms. Cf. e.g. CAMPBELL, 4QMMTd and the Tripartite Canon; FLINT, Psalms and Psalters. 8 DALY-DANTON, David in the Fourth Gospel, 81–82. 9 “Pseudo-Philo retells the biblical narrative from creation through the rise of King David, with major emphasis on the book of Judges. New names, details and dialogue appear, paraphrases

David in the Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum  59

The story of David, the first king of Israel started with Saul, the first prince (Nasi) of Israel. The LAB preserved only that part of the story of David which is incorporated into the story of Saul in 1 Samuel. This portion is found in chapters 58-65. But already in the song of Hanna (ch. 51), Pseudo-Philo prepares the reader for the coming of the king chosen by the Lord, David. In saying that by the birth of Samuel the prophecy of Asaph in Ps 99 is fulfilled, Hanna ensures that “these words will endure until they give the horn to his anointed one and power be present at the throne of his king.” (51:6) As in the case of other rewritings, the LAB bridges the textual problems of multiplied stories. For example, Saul’s becoming a king was recounted three times in 1 Samuel, in the LAB, these are distilled into one. Accordingly, the king of Israel should be elected by the prophet following the instructions of God. Though it is worth mentioning that the LAB does not mention the anointing of Saul by Samuel. 10 The first choice of the prophet Samuel, Saul seemed to be a failure. The biblical text does not clarify what the real sin of Saul was, instead poses two possibilities (1 Sam 13 and 15). The LAB makes it clear. He was “corrupted with silver” by the Ammonite king, Agag” (58:3). He did not fulfill the command of God to kill all his enemies because he was paid off by them. This makes it evident for the reader that Saul had to be deposed from the leadership, and a new innocent king had to be elected. The LAB magnifies Saul’s sin by stating that he left not only Agag, but his wife alive as well. God reveals here a plan that is absent from the biblical account, he orders Samuel to leave both Agag and his wife alive so that they are able to have intercourse at night. The male child who is born to Agag’s wife “will be a stumbling block for Saul.” 11 Accordingly, at the end of the LAB in 65:4, he will be the one who kills Saul thus fulfilling this divine plan. The summarizing words of Samuel concerning the sin and fall of Saul differs from the ones in 1 Sam 13 or 15. He says here: “How much harm Israel has done because they demanded you for themselves as a king before the time came that a king should rule over them!” (58:4). This sentence implies as if the people of Israel would have expressly demanded Saul to be their king, and as if it  of biblical text are mixed with direct quotes, the biblical narrative is drastically revised, and large sections of scripture are summarized peremptorily. While some summaries and expansions follow naturally from the biblical text, others seem to contradict it.” DESCAMP, Metaphor and Ideology, 3. 10 FELDMAN, Prolegomenon, cxxxv, noted Pseudo-Philo’s silence about Samuel’s anointing of Saul. 11 In Ant. 11.211 Josephus connects Agag’s son to the story of Esther, since Haman is told to be the descendant of Agag.

60  József Zsengellér would not have been Samuel who, in accordance with the words of God, made Saul king. Consequently, Saul’s sin is rooted in the sin of Israel’s demand for a king. Moreover this sentence states that Saul was not the real king of Israel since the time had not come yet for Israel to have a king. Consequently, we are waiting for the proper time when Israel’s real king will come which is presented in the next chapter. And this real king who is coming in time is David. 59:1 repeats it in definite terms when Samuel is sent by God to anoint David: “the time in which his kingdom will come to pass has been fulfilled.” This formulation is well known from apocalyptic literature. This is more emphatic than a prophetic announcement, it rather sounds like an apocalyptic revelation. The place of residence of David’s family is not Bethlehem as in the biblical books (1 Samuel, Micah), but Bethel (59:2). The election of David from all his brothers is cut short by God directly naming David, due to the inability of Samuel to see who should be anointed. This is in contrast to the election of Saul when Samuel is said that he is “the one who sees,” diminishes Samuel’s position. At the same time David is supported by the remark that “the Lord was with him from that day” (59:3). At this very moment the LAB features a song from David. It is neither the psalm that can be found in 2 Samuel 1, nor the one in 2 Samuel 22. 12 But it shares some similarity with the LXX Psalm 151 which, according to its colophon, was written after his victory over Goliath. 13 The psalm in 59:4 starts with a quote from Psalm 61:2, a canonical Davidic psalm. “From the ends of the earth I will begin my song of glory.” Next to this localization a temporal definition is also given in the second line: “and from the days long ago I will take up a hymn.” This synthetical parallelism provides a wide context for the psalm from the first first-sibling rivalry on. On the one hand, an analogy was extended to Abel and David as the younger brothers, and to the jealousy of Cain and the jealousy of David’s brothers. This ancient analogy makes no sense in the LAB’s account of preceding or successive events in David’s story. The story of Cain and Abel is missing from the LAB and the jealousy of David’s brothers is not mentioned in the narrative. On the other hand an implied analogy is drawn from the story of Joseph and his older brothers who wanted to kill him because they were jealous

 12 In Ant. 6.166 Josephus mentions that David began to prophesy at this point but he does not present its content. 13 The LXX Psalm 151 seems to have based also on the situation after the anointing of David by Samuel. Cf. SEGAL, The Literary Development of Psalm 151.

David in the Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum  61

of him. 14 This analogy also makes no sense in view of the story in the LAB since in 8:9-10 the whole story of Joseph is summarized by only this sentence relevant in this context: “and these hated their brother, Joseph” (8:9). Consequently, this Davidic psalm in the LAB is based on the biblical description of Cain and Abel, Joseph, and David. All the more so, since David being neglected by his parents when Samuel came to Jesses’ home is highlighted in the psalm, is also only found in the biblical story. As a result, David is depicted in this psalm as some who is ill-treated by his brothers, neglected and forgotten by his parents, but protected and favored by God himself. 15 According to Frederick Murphy, this depiction heightens the irony present in the narrative by showing how most people were unable to grasp what was behind these events. 16 59:5 continues the psalm with a sign. The fearlessness and courage of David were demonstrated in 1 Sam 17:34-37 by a story of him killing a lion and a bear who attacked his sheep. The killing of these animals becomes a sign of David’s victory in battle. Killing these animals with stones is mentioned by God as sign that David will later kill his enemy using stones. 17 The last literary elements of chapter 59 are connected to the fight against Goliath in the biblical storytelling, but chapter 60 goes back in time and retells the situation in 1 Sam 16:14-22 when an evil spirit took hold of Saul. In the biblical story a servant of Saul describes David’s outer and inner qualities, which is omitted by Pseudo-Philo, but he notes instead that David played on his lyre and sang “by night” (60:1). Night is a special time to get in touch with God. Surprisingly the LAB contains here another non-canonical psalm of David. This psalm is an exorcist text, but it differs from the well-known passage in Psalm 91, or the Qum-ranic exorcist texts (4Q560), and it does not mention God saving him from the evil spirit. Rather this psalm embodies a direct verbal exchange with the evil spirit alone. As Louis Feldman remarked this is “the most mystical passage in LAB.” 18 The chapter ends with the success of David in releasing Saul from the power of the evil spirit as a skillful exorcist. Chapter 61 starts with the events in 1 Sam 17:15 when the Philistines attacked Israel and David returned home to his sheep. Pseudo-Philo inserts  14 In this case not in the narrative of 1 Samuel 16, but in Ps 27:10: “If my father and mother forsake me, the Lord will make me up.” 15 “LAB clearly associated David and Joseph as young men destined for leadership and greatness in preference to their brothers.” JACOBSON, Commentary, 1.231. 16 MURPHY, Pseudo-Philo, 51. 17 David’s killing of the animals was seen as a sign elsewhere see MURPHY, Pseudo-Philo, 208. n.59. 18 FELDMAN, Prolegomenon, cxxxviii.

62  József Zsengellér another attack by the Midianites who intended to take David’s sheep. He killed fifteen thousand of them. By inserting this episode, David became a real warrior. Then the war with the Philistines continues with the entrée and speech of Goliath. In this speech, in the LAB, he states that the loss of the ark of the covenant, and the death of Eli’s sons (1 Sam 4) was caused by him alone. He addresses his speech to Saul and takes him on. He threatens Saul to take him and Israel captive, and to force them to serve the gods of the Philistines. Goliath delayed fighting for forty days according to the forty days of feast held by Israel in the wilderness “when it received the Law” (61:2). 19 Pseudo-Philo presents this moment as the reverse of the one at Mount Sinai. It is already not only the ark of the covenant but the covenant with God itself which is at stake. Furthermore as Murphy remarked: “Pseudo-Philo portrays this episode as a direct attack on Torah by an idolatrous foreigner.” 20 On the fortieth day when David comes, he asks if this is the time when the previous promise of God—namely, he kills the enemy with stones—is to be fulfilled. After the quotation of some sentences of 1 Sam 17:31-32 and the LXX 1 Sam 17:36, David is told to take not five (as in 1 Sam 17:40), but seven stones and to write the names of the three patriarchs on them, Moses and Aaron, his own name, and God’s. 21 David together with the patriarchs and the two heroes of Exodus represent Israel whose identity is connected to God. Pseudo-Philo clarifies in advance that the victory is achieved by God, observing that God sent his warrior angel, Zervihel 22 to fight. By doing so the LAB solves the discrepancy between 1 Sam 17:20-58 and 2 Sam 21:19//1 Chron 20:5. David’s speech addressing Goliath is recorded here by Pseudo-Philo concerning their ancestors who were kin, the sisters Ruth and Orpah. Accordingly, Goliath tries to kill his relative, but finally David will do it. He also cites the future words of Goliath to his mother in the afterlife. After hitting Goliath with a stone, David asks him to look at his slayer, and the Philistine consequently “saw an angel” (61:8). The change of David’s appearance to resemble an angel resolves the biblical discrepancy that Saul and his officers did not recognized David (1 Sam 17:55-58) after his victory.  19 Rabbi Johanan in Sotah 42b makes the same. Cf. FELDMAN, Prolegomenon, cxl. 20 MURPHY, Pseudo-Philo, 210. He also observed that the combination of this situation with the challenge of the king strengthens the interests of Pseudo-Philo in the connection of idolatry and leadership. 21 In the late Midrash Shemuel 21, David writes names on the five stones. The name of Moses and David is missing there from the list of LAB. 22 This seems to be another spelling of the same warrior angel, Zeruel who helps Kenaz in 27.10. Cf. HARRINGTON, Pseudo-Philo, 374. n.f.

David in the Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum  63

Chapter 62 has two topics. The first topic is Saul’s jealousy of David which is summed up in the story when Saul was after David in Rama(taim) and fell in a trance (1 Sam 19:18-24). Pseudo-Philo presents the content of this prophecy. Saul prophecies to himself about the fall of his kingdom and that “the kingdom of David will appear” (62:2). Not only his death but the death of Jonathan is foretold. The second topic is the friendship and covenant between David and Jonathan. It is one of the largest portions in the LAB. First, in a long monologue David complains to Jonathan because of the unrighteous behavior of Saul toward David, and his righteous deed to Saul. 23 In his answer, Jonathan reassures David of his knowledge that their “souls will know each other” even after their death. He also assures David that “yours is a kingdom in this world, and from you is the beginning of a kingdom which will come in its own time” (62:9). According to Pseudo-Philo, the kingdom of David is a special one foretold by many prophets. Because of the sorrow of their future separation Jonathan and David have wept and collected their tears into a vessel which is sealed up and dug into the earth to “be a testimony” for their covenant. Jonathan pleads five times for Saul’s cause with David not to remember to his bad deeds. The three closing chapters deal mostly with Saul but also contain indirect and direct references to David. In chapter 63 the LAB reshapes the story of the priests of Nob in 1 Sam 22. The priests in the biblical story had no sin except that they helped David, so they were killed because of him (1 Sam 22:22), but PseudoPhilo makes them guilty in “profaning the holy things of the Lord and desecrating the first fruits of the people” (63:1). So God reveals their bloody end. Consequently, even when Saul killed Abimelek (sic!) and the other priests of Nob because he made a plot with David, the emphasis was on their own guilt and not on their cooperation with David. Chapter 64 rewrites Saul’s visit to the witch of Endor. 24 In the description of 1 Sam 28 the simple reason of Saul to use a medium was that the Lord did not answer him when the Philistines attacked Israel. The LAB connects the attack of the Philistines to the death of Samuel and to the departure of David from Saul’s service, but these two events are the reasons for Saul’s fear, why he tries to ask

 23 LXX Ps 151 and 11Q5 (11QPsa) col. xxviii is used (62:5). 62:5 states that the righteousness of the father of David, Jesse works for others, which converges the later rabbinic tradition, that he is one of the four righteous men who died because of the first sin done by Adam and Eve. Shab. 55b; BB 17a. Cf. GINZBERG, Legend of the Jews, 6.245, n. 7. FELDMAN, Prolegomenon, cxli. 24 Pseudo-Philo uniquely gives the name of the medium: Sedelca.

64  József Zsengellér God. The last words of Samuel to Saul refers again to David: “your insides were eaten up with jealousy, what is yours will be taken from you.” (64:9). 25 Chapter 65 summarizes 1 Sam 31 and 2 Sam 1, the circumstances of Saul’s death. And Saul asks Agag’s son, who kills him, to go and tell David that “I have killed your enemy.” The last words of Saul, which he sent to David, conclude the LAB: “Be not mindful of my hatred or my injustice.” These words echo Jonathan’s plea to David in 62:11. As Murphy notes: “The Biblical Antiquities ends on a note of reconciliation between Israel’s leaders, an end to hatred and jealousy, and an acceptance of God’s just judgment.” 26

4 Elements in which the LAB differs from the previous expositions First of all, the LAB differs from all the other writings of 2nd century BCE and 1st century BCE – 1st century CE compositions that it does not merely refer to or pick up some moments from David’s life and figure, but actually retells the biblical story of David in the sequence given in the books of Samuel. We collect the elements by the main topics. Promise and fulfillment. All the elements of the early story of David are prophesized and later became a reality. His future kingdom is also promised and its fulfillment is expected. Kingdom. David is not only an ideal or the ideal king of Israel in the LAB, but he is the first king of Israel. The first king of a nation is always a key figure for the self-understanding of the people. Therefore the fiasco of Saul’s kingdom is interpreted in the LAB as a failure of Samuel, and the time of David as the time when a king should rule. Messiah. There is no direct reference to an eschatological protagonist or to a figure of a future Messiah in LAB, but the whole story of Saul and David concentrates on David as the anointed one. 27 Therefore there is no scholarly concord, since some, like Harrington, Murphy and Miura deny the messianic character of

 25 Cf. MURPHY, Pseudo-Philo, 218. 26 MURPHY, Pseudo-Philo, 219. 27 The word christus is used in 51:6 (to David), 57:3 (to Saul), 59:2 (to David), 59:4 (to David). Cf. MURPHY, Pseudo-Philo, 260. There is no mention of the covenant of 2 Sam 7 in LAB, cf. RUFFATO, Visionary Ascent of Moses, 147.

David in the Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum  65

David in the LAB, others, like Jacobson, Mendels and Fisk focus on its existence. 28 If the ending of the story in the LAB before the kingdom of David is a conscious decision, then the firm promises of the elected one of God, the description of the special character and personality of David after his anointment 29 reinforce the sporadic references to the anointed one of God. The concept of the coming rule of a Davidic king in Israel might have been a programmatic message for the readers of the book. Mystical and esoteric motifs. David refers to protological secrets in the form of a psalm used to exorcise an evil spirit from Saul (60:2-3), like the primordial darkness and silence, 30 and the creation of evil spirits on the second day. 31 David’s success in exorcism could connect his magical power to his messianic position. 32 The LAB presents magical episodes during David’s fight against Goliath. In his sling he used stones inscribed magically. And after his victory over Goliath his appearance changed and nobody could recognize him. 33 Concealing the vessel that contained the tears of David and Jonathan by burying it in the earth is also a magic deed. 34 David the righteous sufferer. The historiographic note-like remark of 63:5 (“All the things that Saul did, and the rest of his words, and how he pursued David are they not written in the Book of the Kings of Israel”) provides the reader with a source where the undeserved suffering of David is explained in detail. The LAB itself adds one long monologue from David in which he confess his innocence, and his righteous suffering. 62:5-6 gives a vivid picture of his situation based probably on Psalm 124:7: 35 “like a sparrow who flees before the hawk.” As Miura notes: “using David’s circumstances in the Psalm, PseudoPhilo dramatizes David’s inner feeling as a righteous sufferer.” 36  28 MENDELS, The Rise and Fall of Jewish Nationalism, 229–230. 29 He was helped/protected by an angel (59:4). 30 Cf. 2 Bar. 3:7. FELDMAN, Prolegomenon, cxxxviii. 31 Cf. 2 En. 29:1. See RUFFATO, Visionary Ascents of Moses, 147. Jub. 2:2 states that it happened on the first day. See FELDMAN, Prolegomenon, cxxxix. JACOBSON, Commentary, 1.252 remarks that Pseudo-Philo seems to have known elements of early Jewish mystical speculation about creation. 32 Test. Levi 18 mentions that the Messiah will bind Belial and trap the evil spirits until the end of time. See FELDMAN, Prolegomenon, cxl. 33 In 61.9 most of the editions read erexit faciem which is the misreading of the Hebrew original, ‫( שנה‬perhaps written as ‫ – שנא‬the change of David’s face) was read as ‫נשא‬. See GINSBERG, The Legend of the Jews, 6.252. Cf. also JACOBSON, Commentary, 1.217. 34 JACOBSON, Commentary, 1.215. 35 “We have escaped like a bird from the snare of the followers,” Psalm 124:7. 36 MIURA, David in Luke-Acts, 64.

66  József Zsengellér

5 David in the cultural memory of the HellenisticRoman period II. The second epoch of Hellenistic-Roman period separated by Miura starts in the first century BCE and ends in the first century CE. 37 There are six characteristic works that refer to David: Psalm of Solomon, Apocalypse of Zephaniah, both from the 1st century BCE; Philo, 4 Maccabees, Lives of the Prophets, and 4 Ezra all from the 1st century CE. Some of the works of this epoch still have built on Chronicles, like the Lives of the Prophets (Life Isa. 7, Life Nathan 2-3), but references to the biblical prophetic books appear again (Philo), like the motif of suffering (4 Macc. 18:15), and more intensely the messianic interpretation (PsSol. 17; 4 Ezra 12:32-34; 4 Macc.). There are new elements in this period, like the heavenly ascent of David (Ap. Zeph. 9:4). We have to agree with Miura, that there is a shift in interpretation between the two epochs. 38 If we compare the new elements of the LAB discussed above to these elements of the second epoch of the Hellenistic-Roman period, it is obvious that the LAB bears the characteristics of the David interpretation of this second epoch. Moreover, it makes these characteristics more visible. The rewriting of the heroic past of Israel and of the preparation for having a real king fit well into the contemporary expectations in the period of Roman occupation and Jewish collaboration. The contemporary political situation and needs changed the interest of the period in the figure and story of David.

6 Conclusion: David in the cultural memory presented by the LAB In his paper on cultural memory and the Rewritten Bible, Brooke combined some of the characteristic principles of cultural memory as outlined by Assmann: institutionalization, obligation, organization, and the capacity for reconstruction, with four somewhat overlapping strategies of rewriting such as: embellishment, distortion, invention and forgetting. 39 In applying Brooke’s four

 37 MIURA, David in Luke-Acts, 68. 38 There is no reflection on this shift in BEENTJES, Portrayal of David, 177–179. 39 BROOKE, Memory.

David in the Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum  67

combined categories to the LAB as a Rewritten Bible/Scripture composition, the following observations can be made. First, embellishment and institutionalization. 40 An example of embellishment or institutionalization in the LAB is the way in which Pseudo-Philo supplements the story of David in 1 Samuel with the promise or foretelling of future events and with the reflections on the fulfillment of these promises or prophecies. 41 Another example is the presentation of David’s election according to the elements given in 11QPsalma. 42 As Brooke observed: “the effect of embellishment is often to present a more rounded or coherent version of a textual tradition and in so doing to reflect some form of the institutionalization of a group’s heritage.” 43 Second, distortion and obligation. An example of distortion might be detected in the way the LAB uses the figure of David as a psalmist. It is not the case that Psalms sung by David are not present in the core texts of 1 Samuel, that the author of the LAB uses, but rather that such matters are “cultivated” in ways that are determined externally. In the first Psalm of David in the LAB the story of his election is presented in terms of the stories of Cain and Abel, and of Joseph, respectively. By singing the second psalm he seems to be an exorcist, which is expanded by further mystical components in David’s life. Especially this second element is in accordance with Assmann’s idea of how cultural memory is not set firmly against historicism, but rather that it creates “a normative self-image of the group” and “engenders a clear system of values.” 44 Third, invention and organization. An example of invention would seem to be the role and construction of the eschatological character of the anointed David. It is not an extension of the text but an invention which contributes to the creation of a social identity through the enhancement of David’s figure as a transformed person, by exhibiting the special traits of a Messiah. Another type of invention might be the combination of David’s “mother,” Ruth, as the sister

 40 “In many comments on Rewritten Scripture scholars have noted the way that the authors and editors of such compositions extend the text that they depend upon.” BROOKE, Memory, 128–129. 41 One of the main theological ideas of LAB is the prediction and fulfillment of God’s will, which is a common feature of the deuteronomistic historical writing in the biblical books. And as MURPHY, Pseudo-Philo, 206 remarks, “history is a tight web of prediction and fulfillment proceeding according to God’s plan.” 42 1) election of David, 2) an angel protected him, 3) he fought against Goliath. 43 BROOKE, Memory, 129 in reference to ASSMANN, Collective Memory, 130–31. 44 ASSMANN, Collective Memory.

68  József Zsengellér of the “mother” of Goliath, Orpah. 45 A third example is the invention of Agag’s son, who provides a framework for the whole Saul-David story as the son of the one for whose rescue Saul has to die, and he will be the one who carry out this promise. Both inventions make the enemies of Israel more hated but more vulnerable both in the past as well as in the future. Fourth, forgetting and the capacity for reconstruction. “Forgetting is the most notable and obvious means through which memory reconstructs the past.” 46 Abbreviation and forgetting are exemplary techniques of such reconstruction. On the one hand, the LAB abbreviates the story of Saul to concentrate on David’s role in his story as the first king of Israel. On the other hand, if I am right, the LAB forgets to present the story of David as the first king of Israel. The coming of a future king serves a purpose in the narrative of a generation and its historical circumstances, but it is not meaningful to another generation. To reconstruct the figure of David as an ideal king or as the prototype of the Messiah, the LAB also forgets to mention the less flattering parts of David’s story from 1 Samuel. By doing so, he became a faultless hero. While it is widely acknowledged that cultural memory acts to create and strengthen social or group identity, 47 in the case of Pseudo-Philo it is debated which group, if any, he belonged to. It is clear, however, that his representation of Israel’s past with an emphasis on David’s ideal kingdom and messianic characteristics were meant to shape the collective consciousness and attitudes with regard to a more patient, and peaceful concept of the coming king. 48 As Murphy formulates: “Pseudo-Philo’s ending leaves readers unhappy with native Israelite leadership but hopeful that leaders to come, if they are chosen by God and faithful to God’s ways, can bring good fortune to Israel again. The Biblical Antiquities provides the recipe for success.” 49

 45 The identification of Orpah with Harapha is followed later by Ruth Rabbah 2:9, cf. JACOBSON, Commentary, 2.1184. On this topic see also DESCAMP, Metaphor and Ideology, 327, who makes a difference between biological and spiritual ancestry. 46 BROOKE, Memory, 130. 47 WOLD, Memory in the Dead Sea Scrolls, pointed out the role of the remembrance of certain events for the construction of identity in some of the communities behind the Dead Sea Scrolls. 48 “Jonathan’s last words read as a recipe for a harmonious Israelite community. He urges David to forget Saul's anger, hatred, ingratitude, jealousy, and lies, and to remember.” MURPHY, Pseudo-Philo, 259. 49 MURPHY, Pseudo-Philo, 240.

David in the Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum  69

Bibliography ASSMANN, Jan, Collective Memory and Cultural Identity: New German Critique65 (1995) 125–133. ASSMANN, Jan, Moses the Egyptian: The Memory of Egypt in Western Monotheism, Cambridge 1998. BEENTJES, Panc, Portrays of David in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature, in: H. Lichtenberger and U. Mittmann-Richert (eds.), Biblical Figures in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature (DCLY 2008), Berlin 2009, 165–181. BROOKE, George J., Memory, Cultural Memory And Rewriting Scripture, in: J. Zsengellér (ed.), Rewritten Bible after Fifty Years: Last Dialogue with Geza Vermes (JSJSup 166), Leiden 2014, 119–136. CAMPBELL, Jonathan G., 4QMMTd and the Tripartite Canon: JJS 51 (2000) 181–190. DALY-DANTON, Margaret, David in the Fourth Gospel. The Johannine Reception of the Psalms (AGAJU 47), Leiden 2000. DESCAMP, Mary Theresa, Metaphor and Ideology. Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum and Literary Methods through a Cognitive Lens (BIS 87), Leiden 2007. EVANS, Craig A., David in the Dead Sea Scrolls, in: S.E. Porter and C.A. Evans (eds.), The Scrolls and the Scriptures. Qumran Fifty Years After (JSPSup 26), Sheffield 1997, 183–197. FALLON, Francis T., Eupolemus. A New Translation and Introduction, in: J.H. Charlesworth (ed.), Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (vol. 2.), Garden City 1985, 861–871. FELDMAN, Louis H., Prolegomenon, in: M. R. James (transl.) The Biblical Antiquities of Philo, New York 1971, ix–clxix. FLINT, Peter W., Psalms and Psalters in the Dead Sea Scrolls, in: J. H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Princeton Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Vol. 1. Scripture and the Scrolls, Waco 2006, 233–272. GINZBERG, Louis, Legend of the Jews (Vol. 6.), New York, 1954. GOLDSTEIN, Jonathan A., I Maccabees (AB 41), New York 1976. HARRINGTON, Daniel J., Pseudo-Philo. A New Translation and Introduction, in: J.H. Charlesworth (ed.), Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Vol. 2.), Garden City 1985, 297–377. JACOBSON, Howard, A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo's Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, with Latin Text and English Translation (AGAJU 31, 2 vols.), Leiden 1996. JARICK, John, Seven Things that the Chronicler Wants You to Remember about King David, (forthcoming). KISCH, Guido, Pseudo-Philo's Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (PMS 10), Notre Dame 1949. MENDELS, Doron, The Rise and Fall of Jewish Nationalism, Grand Rapids 1997. MIURA, Yuzuru, David in Luke-Acts: His Portrayal in the Light of Early Judaism (WUNT 232), Tübingen 2007. MURPHY, Frederick J., Pseudo-Philo: Rewriting the Bible, Oxford 1993. MYERS, J. M., I. and II. Esdras (AB 42), New York 1974. RUFFATO, Kristine Johnson, Visionary Ascents of Moses in Pseudo-Philo's Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum: Apocalyptic Motifs and the Growth of Visionary Moses Tradition (Marquette University Dissertations), Milwaukee 2010 (http://epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1083&context=dissertations_mu2017.03.). SEGAL, Michael, The Literary Development of Psalm 151: A New Look at the Septuagint Version: Textus 21 (2002) 1–20. WACHOLDER, Ben-Zion, Eupolemus: A Study of Judeo-Greek Literature, Cincinnati 1975.

70  József Zsengellér WADSWORTH, Michael Philip, The Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum of Pseudo-Philo: Doctrine and Scriptural Exegesis in a Jewish Midrash of the First Century A.D., Oxford 1975. WOLD, Benjamin G., Memory in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Exodus, Creation and Cosmos, in: S.C. Barton et al. (eds.), Memory in the Bible and Antiquity (WUNT 212), Tübingen 2007, 47–74. XERAVITS, Géza, The Figure of David in the Book of Ben Sira: Henoch 23 (2001) 27–38.

Géza G. Xeravits

The Reception of the Figure of David in Late Antique Synagogue Art Abstract: Depictions of David in Late Antique synagogue art interpret him as a pre-eminent figure of Israel’s past. As triumphant over Goliath, he exemplifies the superiority of the small Israel over the wealthier surrounding peoples. As the one playing on a lyre, he illustrates his role in establishing formal aspects of Jewish worship, interpreting the synagogue as a kind of continuation of the Temple liturgy. Finally, the Dura murals highlight, on the one hand, David’s virtues and offer in his figure a moral example for the members of the community; on the other hand, his divinely ordered rule compared with several pagan authorities’ benevolent attitude towards Jews consists of a message of consolation and encouragement in turbulent times. Keywords: David, synagogue, Jewish art, Late Antiquity, Dura-Europos, Palestine, mosaic

1 Introduction I first met Ben Wright in the middle of 2000s, at a conference on Ben Sira held in Pápa, Hungary. It soon became clear to me that Ben is not only a brilliant lecturer, an exemplary scholar, but a really fine person whose friendship is a precious gift. A rare specimen among American scholars, he is able to appreciate both the mysteries of Early Judaism and the deep mystery of Hungarian wines. I happily remember a number of exciting conversations with Ben, and also our sharing several bottles of terrific wines either in cellars or in my home. I dedicate this contribution to Ben as a small token of gratitude for his friendship. King David is one of those personalities of the Hebrew Bible who repeatedly affected the thinking of later generations, far beyond Biblical times. The figure of David, his deeds and his significance were elaborated very probably already in the pre-exilic Biblical literature and provoked the interest of later narrators, prophets and poets of the Hebrew Scriptures. 1 Throughout the Second Temple period, authors have frequently reflected about this figure, and his eschatological reinterpretation has deeply influenced the theological views of nascent  1 See, e.g., STEUSSY, David; or IM, Das Davidbild in den Chronikbüchern.

https://doi.org/10.1515/ 9783110596373-005

72  Géza G. Xeravits Christianity. The complex image of David demanded also the attention of the rabbinic writers after the fall of the Second Temple. 2 Considering this vivid and long-standing interest about David within Judaism, it is striking that the preserved remains of Jewish synagogue art—which flourished during the entire period of Late Antiquity, and is characterised by an exuberance of figural representations—provide just a handful of portrayals of him: in three different synagogues altogether. In this paper, I will concentrate on the famous depictions painted on the walls of the Dura synagogue, but first I will have a quick glance at two other images, preserved much more fragmentarily than those at Dura.

2 Mosaic Pavements in Palestine The creation of mosaic decorations with figural art within synagogues was tolerated by rabbinical authorities in Late Antiquity. At this time the strict aniconic approach of the Hasmonaean and Herodian periods has receded considerably. 3 This new attitude is textually supported by a passage preserved in a Genizah fragment of the Talmud of Jerusalem (j.A.Z. 3:3 42d). Here a sentence says that the fourth century CE Rabbi Abun did not hinder those making mosaic floors within synagogues. Both depictions of David from Palestine are located in synagogues which have been erected or decorated after the time of Rabbi Abun. 4 The first image is found in Upper Galilee, in the vicinity of Safed, at the depopulated site of the ancient village of Meroth. 5 Systematic excavations of the site began in 1981; later on, between 1983 and 1989 archaeologists unearthed a complex building consisting of a synagogue, a beth-midrash, and a courtyard with additional chambers. Three of four successive stages might be discerned during the use of the building. In the second stratum of the synagogue—from the second half of the fifth century to the beginning of the sixth—the building

 2 Recently and comprehensively MIURA, David in Luke-Acts; see furthermore POMYKALA, The Davidic Dynasty Tradition; and IDEM, Images of David; FLINT, The Prophet David at Qumran; BASSLER, A Man for All Seasons. 3 On earlier periods see EHRENKROOK, Sculpting Idolatry. 4 On the rabbinic attitude towards synagogue art, see, e.g. BAUMGARTEN, Art in the Synagogue, 62–76. The mosaic floors are treated in a broad context by HACHLILI, Ancient Mosaic Pavements; or recently, by TALGAM, Mosaics of Faith. 5 A comprehensive description of the site is provided by ILAN, The Synagogue and Study House, 256–287; see further NEAEHL 3: 1028–1031; CHEN, Dating Synagogues in Galilee, 349– 355; SPIGEL, Ancient Synagogue Seating Capacities, 276–281.

The Reception of the Figure of David in Late Antique Synagogue Art  73

was decorated with a mosaic floor. In the beginning of the sixth century, this ornate floor was covered by a pavement of large stones, but the archaeologists working on the site were fortunate enough to be able to uncover partial remains of the earlier mosaic. Part of the floor depicted a young man, clothed in a white tunic and a red mantle. He is portrayed reclining on a large shield and surrounded by an enormous helmet and a long sword. Considering the exceptional dimensions of the surrounding armours the excavators interpret the image as displaying the young David after his victory over Goliath (1 Samuel 17). This interpretation seems to have unanimously been accepted by other scholars; indeed, the related Biblical passage stresses the extremely large size of Goliath’s weapons: He had a helmet of bronze on his head, and he was armed with a coat of mail; the weight of the coat was five thousand shekels of bronze. He had greaves of bronze on his legs and a javelin of bronze slung between his shoulders. The shaft of his spear was like a weaver’s beam, and his spear’s head weighed six hundred shekels of iron; and his shield-bearer went before him (1 Samuel 17:5–7).

Fig. 1: The Meroth mosaic (Wikimedia commons)

74  Géza G. Xeravits The Meroth fragment, thus, refers to the rise of David, before his elevation to kingship over Judah and Israel. 6 The other Palestinian example has been found on the Southern coastal plain, in the area of the ancient Maiouma, port of the city of Gaza. Gaza was the most outstanding cultural centre of the region in Late Antiquity, and Asher Ovadiah hypothesised with good reason that it might have hosted an excellent mosaic workshop by the turn of the fifth and sixth centuries, established for decorating religious centres of both Christian and Jewish communities. 7 Contemporary sources reveal that Gaza was the home of a couple of nicely decorated churches—the localisation of which is unknown—and archaeological excavations in 1966 unearthed remains of a remarkably great building with a basilical plan (26 × 60 metres). The building was first identified as a Christian church, but soon after it proved to be a synagogue, which—with its seating capacity of approximately 1300 persons—might be the largest one in Palestine at the time. 8 The nave of the building is flanked by double aisles on both sides. The fragmentary central panel of the original mosaic pavement—which, according to an inscription was made in 509—shows the image of a crowned young figure, with a halo encircling his head. The figure is clothed in a precious dress and plays a lyre, apparently for the surrounding wild beasts. One of these animals, a lioness, is clearly bending towards the human figure. In the years following the discovery, the image has been regrettably damaged because of negligence; later on, however, it was carefully restored by the experts of the Israel Museum, Jerusalem. The first, Egyptian, excavator of the mosaic identified the building as a Christian church, and the figure as a female saint, 9 but a Hebrew inscription on the mosaic (dwyd) soon revealed that it depicts none other than David, and the use of Hebrew reinforced that the building was used by a Jewish community. 10

 6 Another Palestinian example of the Goliath story is depicted on the mosaic floor of the synagogue of Wadi Hamam, I will, however, not treat here this example, because the figure of David is completely missing, due to the fragmentary preservation of the floor. See LEIBNER/MILLER, A Figural Mosaic, 249–257. 7 See OVADIAH, The Mosaic Workshop of Gaza, 367–372; see also HACHLILI, Ancient Mosaic Pavements, 264–266. On the culture of Late Antique Gaza convenient information is provided by NEAEHL 2: 464–467; GLUCKER, The City of Gaza; BITTON-ASHKELONY/KOFSKY, Christian Gaza; SIVAN, Palestine in Late Antiquity, 328–347; CHAMPION, Cultures and Creation. 8 On this, see the recent evaluation of SPIGEL, Ancient Synagogue Seating Capacities, 208–211. 9 See the preliminary publication in Orientalia 35 (1966) 135. 10 OVADIAH, Excavations in the Area, 193–198; IDEM, The Synagogue at Gaza, 129–132.

The Reception of the Figure of David in Late Antique Synagogue Art  75

Fig. 2: The Gaza mosaic (Wikimedia commons)

Because both Palestinian David figures show resemblances to contemporary artistic representations of Orpheus, most scholars tended to interpret these images as examples of a Jewish David-Orpheus iconographical typology. And indeed, the posture of the figure on both mosaics, and the lyre and the bending animal on the Gaza mosaic strongly recall pagan and Christian depictions of the mythical musician. Some even hypothesise that the David of Meroth might have also held a lyre in his hands; others, however, refute this claim, arguing that there is not enough space there to depict that instrument. However, Rachel Hachlili—who herself subscribes to the interpretation of the Gaza figure as Orpheus—calls attention to a number of differences between this image and the customary portrayals of Orpheus: viz. the halo surrounding the head, the dia-

76  Géza G. Xeravits dem, the throne on which the figure is sitting, and the types of the animals. 11 To be sure, despite the undeniable iconographical similarities, I do not think that the Meroth and Gaza mosaics consciously wanted to establish a David-Orpheus typology. The case of the Meroth figure is easier in this respect: besides David’s gesture and perhaps his dress, nothing indicates orphic allusions. The intention of the artist was apparently to depict the young victor, i.e. the first public triumph of the prospective king. For this, no orphic imagery would have been needed. The case of the Gaza mosaic is a bit complicated: here David’s musical instrument and the animals charmed by him are also represented. The orphic features of David might, however, have a very simple explanation. As it was mentioned above, scholars have substantiated the existence of a mosaic workshop in Gaza—a Hellenistic cultural centre. The religious affiliation of the artists belonging to this workshop can hardly be defined, and it is known that their clients were not exclusively Jewish. 12 Moreover, contemporary sources betray that artists from Gaza were very well at home in pagan mythological imagery; that is to say, their artistic ars poetica was at a good part Hellene. 13 It is not surprising, therefore, that they combined their clients’ ideas with their usual inventory of motifs. The real problem with this depiction at Gaza is that David is nowhere reported in the Hebrew Bible as playing music for animals. His musical skills are used for calming Saul’s troubled soul (1 Samuel 16), and, presumably, for expressing his own emotions (as in 2 Samuel 1). Another related aspect is provided by the Chronicler, where David plays a pre-eminent role in arranging liturgy; and 2 Chronicles 7:6 effectively portrays him as making musical instruments for the Levites in the Temple. Later traditions most naturally consider him to be the author of the psalms. 14 The figure of David in Gaza, thus, instead of representing hypothetical allusions to the well-known pagan musician, might rather be interpreted in purely Jewish terms. Within a synagogue, David playing on a lyre most naturally called the attention to his activity of ordering the Israelite cult. In a synagogue, recalling this function of David emphasizes the connections between two kinds of worship: that of the Temple, and the one practiced in the

 11 HACHLILI, Ancient Mosaic Pavements, 73–74. 12 OVADIAH, The Synagogue at Gaza, 372. 13 In a broader context see TALGAM, The EKPHRASIS EIKONOS, 209–234. 14 One of the earliest expressions of these traditions is found at the great Psalms Scroll of Qumran cave 11: 11QPsaDavComp (DJD 4:91–93); for later rabbinic opinions, see b. Bava Batra 14b; b. Pesaḥim 117a; Midrash Tehillim 1.

The Reception of the Figure of David in Late Antique Synagogue Art  77

synagogue. 15 The animals have just a subsidiary or marginal role as compared to David in this mosaic. Their presence might express the cosmic aspects of Jewish worship.

3 The Paintings of Dura Other, highly important artistic elaborations of the figure of David are preserved in the famous Diaspora synagogue at Dura, located at the middle course of the Euphrates, desperately looted during the ongoing civil war in Syria. 16 The Durene Jews built their first known synagogue in the middle of the second century CE, and it was enlarged and supplemented by an impressive new building about 245. Dura was situated in this time at the border-land of the Roman Empire and the rising Sassanian Empire. After a bloody siege, the Sassanian army of Shapur I destroyed the city in 256, and since then it has never been rebuilt. Immediately before the siege of the city the building blocks along the west wall were filled with earth in order to strengthen the fortifications. In the course of this activity, nearly the entire synagogue was covered by soil, which preserved its rich decorations until the early 1920s, when the excavations began there. 17

3.1 Depictions of David at Dura The walls of the synagogue were fully covered in horizontal rows by predominantly narrative murals depicting various Biblical scenes—among others, they evoke stories about the life of David. Scholars agree that the figure of David appears on the central panel above the Torah niche, and it is obvious that an 15 On the differences and connections between Temple and synagogue, see, e.g. COHEN, The Temple and the Synagogue, 151–174; BRANHAM, Vicarious Sacrality, 319–345; and XERAVITS, Temple and Synagogue. 16 Studies on the city of Dura is endless, see, e.g. ROSTOVTZEFF, Dura-Europos and its Art; HOPKINS, The Discovery of Dura Europos; DIRVEN, The Palmyrenes of Dura-Europos; and BRODY/ HOFFMAN, Dura-Europos. 17 Scholarly literature related to the synagogue of Dura is also enormously vast. Definitive publication of the site is KRAELING, The Synagogue; and see also DU MESNIL DU BUISSON, Les peintures; WISCHNITZER, The Messianic Theme; GOODENOUGH, Jewish Symbols; GUTMANN, The Dura-Europos Synagogue; WEITZMAN/KESSLER, The Frescoes of the Dura Synagogue; HACHLILI, Diaspora, 96–197.

78  Géza G. Xeravits other panel of the Western wall (WC 3) also depicts him; the iconographic evidence is reinforced by an Aramaic dipinto (šmw[l] kd mšḥ [d]wyd, “Samuel when anointing David”). Most scholars admit that David is depicted also on the East wall (panel EC 1), and some scholars connect other scenes with David.

Fig. 3: The figure of David in the Dura synagogue

The entrance of the synagogue was situated at the East wall. This wall was the farthest from the city wall, and during the secondary fortification before the Sassanian siege it was not entirely covered by earth, consequently only parts of the bottom of the murals in the lower register are preserved. At the right side of the door of the synagogue, a longer narrative panel is seen (EC 1, 4.88 m.), depicting episodes of a story from the early years of David, when he spares the life of king Saul in the wilderness of Ziph (1 Samuel 26). The panel slavishly follows the Biblical narrative in three successive episodes, which are marked by the change of colour in the background. 18 The first episode calls to mind a hunting scene with cavalry and dogs: here Saul led his forces to seek David in the wilderness (26:2). The next episode depicts the king and his entourage sleeping, while David and his men take away the king’s spear (26:7–12). Finally, at the right side of the panel David reveals himself (26:14–16). The interpretation of the

 18 GOODENOUGH, Jewish Symbols, 11: xvii and 344 this change of colour is not striking at the reproductions, but is stressed by KRAELING, The Synagogue, 203.

The Reception of the Figure of David in Late Antique Synagogue Art  79

panel’s dramatis personae is nearly unanimous among scholars: only a few early interpreters argued for a protagonist other than David. 19 Scholars dispute, however, whether or not the panel fits into an overall messianic theme observed in the murals at Dura. For Rachel Wischnitzer, who hypothesizes a comprehensive messianic message in the artistic program of the synagogue, the panel relates the outstanding moral attitude of the progenitor of the messiah. 20 Leaving aside the validity of Wischnitzer’s overall interpretation of the murals for the time being, it is enough to say that the EC 1 panel in se does not betray any hints of a messianic interpretation. If one contrasts it with the only other preserved painting of the regrettably damaged Eastern wall, which very probably depicts Belshazzar’s feast from Daniel 5 (EC 2), 21 the messianic interpretation of EC 1 remains unsubstantiated. Of course, David’s ethical qualities might be the question here—as they are clearly contrasted with Belshazzar’s ungodly hybris. The contrast between Jew and non-Jew in this instance clearly fits in with the kind of cultural resistance of the Durene Jews vis-à-vis their gentile environment as described exemplarily by Jaś Elsner. 22 To put it the other way around, the preserved East wall panels do not have an eschatological orientation: they might simply be interpreted on the moral level. At first sight, the side walls of the synagogue are not interested in the figure of David. Even so, some scholars have tried to interpret some elements of these two walls as related to David. The first is an entire—fragmentarily preserved— panel of the South wall (SB 1) in the middle register that comprises panels connected to cultic matters. The remains of this painting apparently display a procession with the Ark of the Covenant. Generally, the scene is interpreted as visualising 1 Kings 8:1–5, the transfer of the Ark into the newly built Temple by Solomon. Based on two elements, however, Kurt Weitzman has argued that the panel rather depicts 2 Samuel 6:12–15, when David transports the Ark to Jerusalem. It was told King David, “The LORD has blessed the household of Obed-edom and all that belongs to him, because of the ark of God.” So David went and brought up the ark of God from the house of Obed-edom to the city of David with rejoicing; and when those who bore the ark of the LORD had gone six paces, he sacrificed an ox and a fatling. David danced

 19 On this, see, e.g. HACHLILI, Diaspora, 129. 20 WISCHNITZER, The Messianic Theme, 36. 21 This interpretation is generally held by scholars. Other opinions hypothesise Abraham’s sacrifice from Genesis 17; Elijah fed by the ravens; the cleansing of the Temple, etc. See esp. WISCHNITZER, The Messianic Theme, 21–22; and HACHLILI, Diaspora, 129–130. 22 ELSNER, Cultural Resistance, 269–304.

80  Géza G. Xeravits before the LORD with all his might; David was girded with a linen ephod. So David and all the house of Israel brought up the ark of the LORD with shouting, and with the sound of the trumpet.

Fig. 4: Dura synagogue, SB 1 panel (GOODENOUGH, Jewish Symbols, 11: XVI)

Weitzman bases his argument on two premises: first, he interprets one of the youths accompanying the procession as playing a flute, and points to the fact that the only related story mentioning music is the one in 2 Samuel; second, he interprets the posture of the assumed leader of the procession as dancing, which is, again, a feature of the 2 Samuel story. 23 As for the flute, the fourth figure from the right might be interpreted as playing this instrument, 24 but he is the only one of the preserved figures doing this. His two counterparts at the far right are carrying branches, the others are bringing the Ark. Moreover, it is true that the 2 Samuel story refers to musical activity, whereas 1 Kings 8 does not. But the Biblical text speaks about lyre, harp, tambourine, castanet, cymbal and trumpet; it does not mention a flute:

 23 WEITZMAN/KESSLER, The Frescoes of the Dura Synagogue, 94–98. 24 I thank Prof. Paul Flesher, who, in private communication, reconfirmed the presence of a flute. See GOODENOUGH, Jewish Symbols, 11: xvi—the reproduction is ambiguous.

The Reception of the Figure of David in Late Antique Synagogue Art  81

David and all the house of Israel were dancing before the LORD with all their might, with songs and lyres and harps and tambourines and castanets and cymbals (2 Samuel 6:5).

Secondly, the figure, who seems to lead the procession in the preserved material of the damaged panel, does not differ significantly in posture from the other persons depicted. Therefore, it is impossible to substantiate the interpretation of his pose as dancing. Despite my reluctance to subscribe to all the details of Weitzman’s interpretation, he might be correct in identifying this panel as representing 2 Samuel 6. Nevertheless, even if this is the case, two observations are appropriate concerning the role of the otherwise unidentifiable David: first, he appears in a cultic function, and second, he is not a protagonist in the panel. This paining is clearly about the Ark, suitably for the exclusively cultic orientation of the middle register.

Fig. 5: Dura synagogue, NC 1 panel (GOODENOUGH, Jewish Symbols, 11: XXI)

Another possible appearance of David on the side walls is claimed to be in the large and complex Ezekiel-panel of the North wall, the longest of all the narrative panels in the synagogue (NC 1, 7,46 m.). Ezekiel appears eight times on the panel: his first six representations belong to the depiction of Ezekiel 37, the Valley of the Dry Bones prophecy; the two last representations belong, with all probability, to the extra-Biblical story of Ezekiel’s martyrdom. 25 Considering the fact that the figures generally interpreted as depicting Ezekiel underwent a change of clothes, some scholars think that in fact two different figures are presented on the panel: those in Persian garb represent Ezekiel, but the figures  25 The last scene of the panel has been interpreted differently by WISCHNITZER, The Messianic Theme, 36–38; and HOPKINS, The Discovery, 168–172.

82  Géza G. Xeravits dressed in Greek clothes might depict someone else, most probably the eschatological, messianic David. 26 Their opinion is based on Ezekiel 37:24, which presages that “my servant David shall be king over them.” There are two basic problems with this interpretation. First—as Carl Kraeling has demonstrated—there is an intrinsic coherence between the figures in Persian and Greek clothes on the panel. 27 Even the textual tradition refers to Ezekiel as priest and prince (hence the Persian dress), on the one hand, and a prophet (which is marked in the Dura paintings by the Greek clothes), on the other hand. Moreover, the two Ezekiel figures in the prophets’ dress mark the climax of the Dry Bones prophecy: the revivification of the house of Israel. One must furthermore admit that the scope of the panel need not extend to the continuation of the Dry Bones prophecy in 37:15–28. In the middle of the panel Ezekiel 37:10 is illustrated: I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood on their feet, a vast multitude.

I now turn to the West wall of the Dura synagogue, which obviously had preeminent importance among the walls, since it faces the direction of Jerusalem, and includes the Torah niche, towards which the attendants of the synagogue liturgy were oriented. David appears three times on the murals of this wall: once in the lower register, immediately right from the Torah niche (WC 3), and twice on the central panel (reredos). 28 The scene in the WC 3 panel is easily identifiable. A tall figure wearing a white draped Greek dress—characteristic of the prophets in the Dura paintings— stands besides seven smaller persons. One of these is standing somewhat to the fore, the salient purple mantle he wears and the pose of his head slightly turned towards the taller man equally detach him from the crowd of his companions. The tall man is depicted as touching the head of this figure with a horn. If one immediately would not identify this scene with David’s anointing by Samuel (1 Samuel 16:11–13), an Aramaic dipinto mentioned above helps in doing this (šmw[l] kd mšḥ [d]wyd). The reduction of the number of Jesse’s sons from eight to seven does not cause problems: already the genealogy at the beginning of 1 Chronicles testifies to this tradition. 29  26 KRAELING, The Meaning of the Ezekiel Panel, 12–18; WISCHNITZER, The Conception of Resurrection, 43–55; EADEM, The Messianic Theme, 45–46. 27 KRAELING, The Synagogue, 189, 193–194. 28 The importance of this area has been highlighted by HACHLILI, Diaspora, 106, too. See recently XERAVITS, The Message. 29 Cp. KRAELING, The Synagogue, 168.

The Reception of the Figure of David in Late Antique Synagogue Art  83

The reredos of the West wall is an area which underwent at least two different phases of decoration. 30 Below, I consider only the last phase of paintings—the final composition, so to speak—the executor of which has red-washed the previous layer, and carried out a completely new design.

Fig. 6: Dura synagogue, WC 3 panel (GOODENOUGH, Jewish Symbols, 11: VII)

The reredos of the final composition has two registers. On the upper panel, the artist reused an important earlier element, an enthroned figure wearing Persian clothes and accompanied by two other men in Greek dress. The final artist has complemented the painting with thirteen additional figures, dressed, again, in Persian clothes. Most scholars interpret this panel as depicting King David with

 30 The sequence of the various layers at the reredos is treated, e.g., by KRAELING, The Synagogue, 62–65 and 215–227; or HACHLILI, Diaspora, 99–111.

84  Géza G. Xeravits the representatives of the Israelite tribes (eleven plus two half-tribes). 31 The men in Greek robes are generally identified with the prophets Samuel and Nathan; 32 those who opt for a messianic interpretation of the panel, hold that these figures must represent Moses and Elijah. 33

Fig. 7: Dura synagogue, reredos, upper panel (GOODENOUGH, Jewish Symbols, 11: 323)

Another striking depiction of David is provided in the upper left corner of the reredos’ lower panel. Here a figure is represented sitting on a throne. He wears royal robes and a Phrygian cap, and plays on a lyre. Behind his right shoulder an object was painted; previously it was identified as an eagle. Paul Flesher has convincingly demonstrated, however, that it is none other than a shepherd’s crook. 34 To the right of the figure, two animals are depicted, a lion and a dove. 35 Earlier commentators unanimously interpreted this figure as Orpheus, and equated him—seemingly most naturally—with David. Above I have questioned whether one should presuppose a David-Orpheus typology in Judaism. Indeed,  31 Other interpretation consists of WISCHNITZER, The Synagogue, 96–99: Joseph and his brethren; for further opinions, see, HACHLILI, Diaspora, 109. 32 WEITZMAN/KESSLER, The Frescoes of the Dura Synagogue, 90–91. 33 GOLDSTEIN, The Central Composition, 118–131. 34 FLESHER, Rereading the Reredos, 350–351. 35 Some scholars tried to identify more animals, but these are pure fictions, see FLESHER, Rereading the Reredos, 351–352; see also HACHLILI, Diaspora, 110–111.

The Reception of the Figure of David in Late Antique Synagogue Art  85

the figure at Dura is highly ambiguous—in this case, one has to consult, again, with Paul Flesher’s aforementioned paper, who called attention to some elements inconsistent with the habitual iconography of Orpheus. 36

Fig. 8: Dura synagogue, reredos, lower panel (GOODENOUGH, Jewish Symbols, 11: 323)

I must confess I have serious problems in interpreting this figure together with both the other material of the reredos and the narrative panels of the West wall. My impression is that it is somewhat out of context in its actual position. Indeed, scholars do not agree even about the fact to which decorative stage this musician belongs. Goodenough, for example, thinks that this figure belongs to the earlier phase of the decoration, and was painted together with the vine-tree. Goldstein held this view, too, and went so far as to consider the supposed figure

 36 FLESHER, Rereading the Reredos, 350–359; cp. earlier MURRAY, The Christian Orpheus, 19–27.

86  Géza G. Xeravits of David-Orpheus as the messianic fruit of the tree. 37 On the contrary, Kraeling and Hachlili hold that the figure originates from the second phase of the synagogue’s decoration. 38 Flesher calls attention to the fact that the reredos is most damaged especially at the figure in question, 39 making any definitive conclusions about the compositional position of this figure impossible.

3.2 Interpretation of the West Wall Paintings The first question concerning the narrative panels at Dura is whether they display an altogether coherent composition or not. Despite the efforts of several scholars, who argue for this view, 40 it seems to be much safer to avoid this approach. Nevertheless, this does not mean that some panels might not show close relationship with one another. Indeed, this is the case with three panels of the West wall, viz. panel WC 3, the upper panel of the reredos, and panel WC 2. Two of them are connected with the figure of David, and considering the three together, they are arranged in a triangular shape in the very centre of the West wall. All three panels are interested in the idea of rule or political power. The first instalment (WC 3) depicts the birth of kingship in Israel. The pre-eminently large figure of the prophet Samuel who anoints the young David strongly emphasises the divine approval for the inauguration of the royal office for the Jews. At the top of the centre of the wall, David is depicted enthroned, together with the representatives of the tribes and two prophetic figures. This panel illustrates the formal, factual fulfilment of Samuel’s previous act, and the change of the protagonists is clearly marked by the change in dimensions of the figures: in this panel, the figure of David is apparently larger than those of the prophets. Finally, the artist closes this small, triangular cycle with the so-called Esther and Ahasuerus (or Purim Triumph) panel (WC 2). This painting represents the benevolent attitude of the Persian king towards the Jews, and at the same time the humiliation of their pagan foe. With this panel, the artist/designer has drawn his community’s present experience, and confesses the belief that under pagan rule the Jews might live according to their proper Lebensordnung.

 37 GOODENOUGH, Jewish Symbols, 9: 89–104; GOLDSTEIN, The Central Composition, passim, see esp. 140. 38 KRAELING, The Synagogue, 223–225; HACHLILI, Diaspora, 110–111. 39 FLESHER, Rereading the Reredos, 347–348. 40 See, e.g., SONNE, The Paintings, 255–362; WISHNITZER, The Messianic Theme; GOODENOUGH, Jewish Symbols; GOLDSTEIN, The Central Composition, 99–142.

The Reception of the Figure of David in Late Antique Synagogue Art  87

Fig. 9: Compositional scheme of the West wall—Leitmotiv: rule

The position of David in this arrangement is clearly pre-eminent. It must be noted, however, that this does not require a messianic interpretation. In fact, the messianic “virus” that infected several interpreters of the Dura murals seems groundless. 41 It was shown that the messianic interpretation of the narrative panels of the Dura paintings depart mainly from the material of the reredos—which, in fact, offers little room for this kind of explanation. 42 This part of the West wall exhibits an historical interest. The lower panel visualizes Genesis 48, the blessings of Ephraim and Manasseh, and Genesis 49, the blessings of the tribes. The upper scene represents the accomplishment of Jacob’s blessing: the Land promised by God has been seized and divided among the tribes, and David from the tribe of Judah has dominion over them. This theme is broadened by the relationship of the upper panel with WC 3 and WC 2, also on a historical or political level.

 41 See especially WISHNITZER, The Messianic Theme; GOLDSTEIN, The Central Composition; WEITZMAN/KESSLER, The Frescoes of the Dura Synagogue. 42 See, e.g., the critique of FLESHER, Rereading the Reredos, 359–366.

88  Géza G. Xeravits

4 Conclusion If my analysis above is correct about the depictions of David in Late Antique synagogue art, the figure of the great king is interpreted by these artists as a preeminent figure of Israel’s past. As triumphant over Goliath, he exemplifies the superiority of the small Israel over wealthier surrounding peoples. As the one playing on a lyre, he illustrates his role in establishing formal aspects of Jewish worship, interpreting the synagogue as a kind of continuation of the Temple liturgy. Finally, the Dura murals highlight, on the one hand, David’s virtues and offer in his figure a moral example to the members of the community (EC 1); on the other hand, his divinely ordered rule compared with several pagan authorities’ benevolent attitude towards Jews consists of a message of consolation and encouragement in turbulent times (West wall).

Bibliography BASSLER, Jouette M., A Man for All Seasons. David in Rabbinic and New Testament Literature: Interpretation 40 (1986) 156–169. BAUMGARTEN, Joseph M., Art in the Synagogue. Some Talmudic Views, in: S. Fine (ed.), Jews, Christians, and Polytheists in the Ancient Synagogue. Cultural Interaction during the Greco-Roman Period. London 1999, 62–76. BITTON-ASHKELONY, Brouria / KOFSKY, Aryeh (eds.), Christian Gaza in Late Antiquity (JSRC 3), Leiden 2004. BRANHAM, Joan R, Vicarious Sacrality: Temple Space in Ancient Synagogues, in: D. Urman and P.V.M. Flesher (eds.), Ancient Synagogues. Historical Analysis and Archaeological Discovery (SPB 47), Leiden 1998, 319–345. BRODY, Lisa R. / HOFFMAN, Gail L. (eds.), Dura-Europos: Crossroads of Antiquity, Chestnut Hill 2011. CHAMPION, Michael W., Cultures and Creation in Late-antique Gaza: Christian and Neoplatonic Interactions (PhD diss., King’s College, London 2010). CHEN, Doron, Dating Synagogues in Galilee: On the Evidence from Meroth and Capernaum: Liber Annuus 40 (1990) 349–355. COHEN, Shaye J.D., The Temple and the Synagogue, in: T.G. Madsen (ed.), The Temple in Antiquity (RSMS 9), Provo 1984, 151–174. DIRVEN, Lucinda, The Palmyrenes of Dura-Europos: A Study of Religious Interaction in Roman Syria (RGRW 138), Leiden 1999. DU MESNIL DU BUISSON, Robert, Les peintures de la Synagogue de Doura-Europos, 245-256 après J-C., Rome 1939. EHRENKROOK, Jason von, Sculpting Idolatry in Flavian Rome: (An)Iconic Rhetoric in the Writings of Flavius Josephus (SBLEJL 33), Atlanta 2012.

The Reception of the Figure of David in Late Antique Synagogue Art  89

ELSNER, Jaś, Cultural Resistance and the Visual Image: The Case of Dura Europos: Classical Philology 96 (2001) 269–304. FLESHER, Paul V.M., Rereading the Reredos: David, Orpheus, and Messianism in the Dura Europos Synagogue, in: D. Urman and P.V.M. Flesher (eds.), Ancient Synagogues. Historical Analysis and Archaeological Discovery (SPB 47), Leiden 1998, 350–351. FLINT, Peter W., The Prophet David at Qumran, in: M. Henze (ed.) Biblical Interpretation at Qumran (SDSSRL), Grand Rapids 2005, 158–167. GLUCKER, Carol A.M., The City of Gaza in the Roman and Byzantine Periods (BAR 325), Oxford 1987. GOLDSTEIN, Jonathan A., The Central Composition of the West Wall of the Synagogue of DuraEuropos: JANES 16/17 (1984/85) 118–131. GOODENOUGH, Erwin R., Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period. Volumes 9–11: Symbolism in the Dura Synagogue (Bollingen Series 37), New York 1964. GUTMANN, Joseph (ed.), The Dura-Europos Synagogue: A Re-evaluation (1932–1972), Missoula 1973. HACHLILI, Rachel, Ancient Jewish Art and Archaeology in the Diaspora (HdO I.35), Leiden 1998. HACHLILI, Rachel, Ancient Mosaic Pavements: Themes, Issues, and Trends: Selected Studies, Leiden 2009. HOPKINS, Clark, The Discovery of Dura Europos, New Haven 1979. ILAN, Zvi, The Synagogue and Study House at Meroth, in: D. Urman and P.V.M. Flesher (eds.), Ancient Synagogues. Historical Analysis and Archaeological Discovery (SPB 47), Leiden 1998, 256–287. IM, TaeSoo, Das Davidbild in den Chronikbüchern. David als Idealbild des theokratischen Messianismus für den Chronisten, Frankfurt 1985. KRAELING, Carl H., The Synagogue. The Excavations at Dura-Europos. Final Report VIII.1, New Haven 1956. KRAELING, Emil G., The Meaning of the Ezekiel Panel in the Synagogue at Dura: BASOR 78 (1940) 12–18. LEIBNER, Uzi / MILLER, Shulamit, A Figural Mosaic in the Synagogue at Khirbet Wadi Hamam: JRA 23 (2010) 238–264. MIURA, Yuzuru, David in Luke-Acts: His Portrayal in the Light of Early Judaism (WUNT 2.232), Tübingen 2007. MURRAY, S. Charles, The Christian Orpheus: CA 26 (1977) 19–27. OVADIAH, Asher, Excavations in the Area of the Ancient Synagogue at Gaza: IEJ 19 (1969) 193– 198. OVADIAH, Asher, The Synagogue at Gaza, in: L.I. Levine (ed.), Ancient Synagogues Revealed, Jerusalem 1981, 129–132. OVADIAH, Asher, The Mosaic Workshop of Gaza in Christian Antiquity, in: D. Urman and P.V.M. Flesher (eds.), Ancient Synagogues. Historical Analysis and Archaeological Discovery (SPB 47), Leiden 1998, 367–372. POMYKALA, Kenneth E., The Davidic Dynasty Tradition in Early Judaism: Its History and Significance for Messianism (SBLEJL 7), Atlanta 1995. POMYKALA, Kenneth E., Images of David in Early Judaism, in: C.A. Evans (ed.), Of Scribes and Sages: Early Jewish Interpretation and Transmission of the Bible. Volume 1 (LSTS 50), London 2004, 33–46. ROSTOVTZEFF, Michael, Dura-Europos and its Art, Oxford 1938. SIVAN, Hagith, Palestine in Late Antiquity, Oxford 2008.

90  Géza G. Xeravits SONNE, Isaiah, The Paintings of the Dura Synagogue: HUCA 20 (1947) 255–362. SPIGEL, Chad S, Ancient Synagogue Seating Capacities. Methodology, Analysis and Limits (TSAJ 149), Tübingen 2012. STEUSSY, Marti J., David: Biblical Portraits of Power, Columbia 1999. TALGAM, Rina, The EKPHRASIS EIKONOS of Procopius of Gaza: The Depiction of Mythological Themes in Palestine and Arabia during the Fifth and Sixth Centuries, in: B. BittonAshkelony and A. Kofsky (eds.), Christian Gaza in Late Antiquity (JSRC 3), Leiden 2004, 209–234. TALGAM, Rina, Mosaics of Faith. Floors of Pagans, Jews, Samaritans, Christians, and Muslims in the Holy Land, Jerusalem 2014. WEITZMAN, Kurt and KESSLER, Herbert L., The Frescoes of the Dura Synagogue and Christian Art (DOS 28), Washington 1990. WISCHNITZER, Rachel, The Conception of Resurrection in the Ezekiel Panel of the Dura Synagogue: JBL 60 (1941) 43–55. WISCHNITZER, Rachel, The Messianic Theme in the Paintings of the Dura Synagogue, Chicago 1948. XERAVITS, Géza G., Temple and Synagogue in Late Antiquity, in: idem et al. (eds.), Various Aspects of Worship in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature (DCLY 2016/17), Berlin 2017, 341–364. XERAVITS, Géza G., The Message of the West Wall of the Dura Synagogue: ZDMG 167 (2017) 111– 125.

Matthew Goff

A New Suggestion Concerning the Enigmatic Elioud of the Book of the Watchers Abstract: The form of 1 En. 7:2 preserved in Syncellus describes the antediluvian giants as a sequence of three generations—the giants, the Nephilim, and Elioud. The term Elioud is a well-known crux. This article suggests that the three generational sequence in the Animal Apocalypse can help elucidate the meaning of Elioud. The third animal in the list in this text, which thus corresponds to the Elioud, is “wild ass” (‫)ערד‬. A study of this term suggests that the Elioud can be reasonably understood as “descendants” (‫ )יליד‬of the watchers and also the forefathers of early inhabitants of Canaan, such as the Anaqim, whom the Hebrew Bible describes as a type of giant. Keywords: Elioud, giants, the Book of the Watchers, the Animal Apocalypse, Syncellus, Anaqim

1 Introduction In The Antichrist Nietzsche calls philology “the art of reading well—of reading facts without falsifying them by interpretation, without losing caution, patience, delicacy, in the desire to understand.” 1 He elsewhere praises attentive reading of texts, which he describes as “learning to see—accustoming the eye to calmness, to patience, to letting things come up to it; postponing judgment, learning to go around and grasp each individual case from all sides.” 2 Philology, so understood, can be simultaneously conservative and radical. The timehonored practice of being a careful and deliberate reader of texts does not necessarily mean that one simply repeats established interpretations. It opens up ways to find new insights and dimensions to texts. Ron Hendel holds up philology in this sense as a model for biblical scholarship. The scholarship of Ben Wright, which has consistently been judicious and careful while open to new possibilities, fits very well with the Nietzschean mode of philology which

 1 KAUFMANN, The Portable Nietzsche, 635. This is cited, as is the following quote from Nietzsche, in HENDEL, Mind the Gap, 431. 2 This is from Twilight of the Idols. See KAUFMANN, The Portable Nietzsche, 511.

https://doi.org/10.1515/ 9783110596373-006

92  Matthew Goff Hendel advocates. 3 In that spirit I offer a philological study to honor Wright’s substantial contribution to the field. I focus on a long-standing interpretive problem—how to understand the enigmatic Elioud of the Book of the Watchers. The Aramaic manuscripts of the Animal Apocalypse from Qumran are critical for this investigation. While scholarship on the term Elioud has in general focused on its etymology, an important if difficult issue, it would be helpful to also focus on its possible function, as illuminated through its adaptation in the Animal Apocalypse: that as the third and final item in the sequence of three generations of antediluvian giants, the Elioud constitute a pivotal precursor to early inhabitants of the land.

2 Giants, Napheleim, and Elioud There are important differences among the textual witnesses of the Book of the Watchers with regard to how they portray antediluvian events. For our purposes the key issue is 1 En. 7:2. The Ethiopic and the Greek Panopolitanus manuscript give essentially the same text—“The women, having become pregnant, gave birth to great giants (γίγαντας μεγάλους; raʿāyta ʿabayta), 3,000 cubits in measure.” 4 4Q201 iii 16-17 fragmentarily preserves similar material, stating that “they (fem pl.) became pregnant and gave bir[th] ([‫ ”)יל]דה‬and, after a gap of over half a line, that “they,” referring to their offspring, were born (‫)הוו מתילדין‬. 5 The Byzantine chronographer Syncellus preserves two lengthy excerpts of Watchers. The first includes a statement that is at the heart of our inquiry: 4F

These and all the rest (the 20 named angels and the other angels who descended) took for themselves wives in A.M. 1170, and they began to defile themselves with them up to the Flood. And they bore for them three races (γένη τρία). First the great giants (γίγαντας

 3 Hendel’s interest in the philology advocated by Nietzsche engages issues that go beyond the present essay. For Hendel Nietzsche’s philology can connect modernist and postmodern forms of biblical scholarship. While compatible with traditional historical-critical scholarship, this type of philology can develop interpretations of texts that can undermine entrenched readings, which accords with the postmodern critique of historical criticism. See also HENDEL, The Untimeliness of Biblical Philology. 4 My translation. Translations of 1 Enoch, with occasional modification, are normally from NICKELSBURG, 1 Enoch 1. 5 MILIK, The Books of Enoch, 150–151. He supplements in the lacuna the assertion that their children were 3,000 cubits tall. See also BHAYRO, The Shemihazah and Asael Narrative, 67; NICKELSBURG, 1 Enoch 1, 182–183.

A New Suggestion Concerning the Enigmatic Elioud of the Book of the Watchers  93

μεγάλους). Then the giants begot the Napheleim (Ναφηλείμ), and to the Napheleim were born Elioud (Ἐλιούδ). And they were increasing in accordance with their greatness, and they taught themselves and their wives the uses of potions and spells (§21). 6

While sharing some details with GPan, such as the phrase γίγαντας μεγάλους, and the claim that the offspring are of great height (although without mentioning a specific measurement), there is more going on in this passage than angels impregnating women. The version of Watchers excerpted by Syncellus envisages a sequence of three generations: giants, Napheleim, and Elioud. This illustrates the inadequacy of the term “giant” to denote the creatures in question, since this word is used for only the first of the three generations. The spelling “Napheleim” transliterates a Hebrew word ending into Greek, which is striking given that Watchers is preserved in multiple copies at Qumran in Aramaic, not Hebrew. The form of the word in Syncellus doubtlessly relies on the Hebrew term ‫ נפילים‬of Gen 6:4, reflecting a mingling of the accounts of antediluvian history in Genesis 6 and Watchers, which is itself an adaptation of a form of Genesis 6. 7 In terms of assessing the term Elioud in Syncellus, another important datum is the version of antediluvian events in the Book of Jubilees. It describes the events that led up to the flood in chapter 5. It states that, not unlike 1 En. 7:2 in GPan or the Ethiopic, “giants” (Eth. raʿāyt, the same term as in 1 En. 7:2) roamed the earth and spread evil (5:1). The cannibalism motif is not restricted to the giants but extended to all the animals of the earth. Their indiscriminate and unlawful consumption helps convey that no innocent creatures perished in the flood (cf. Philo, Q.G. 2.9). 8 In Jubilees 7 the patriarch recounts to his grandsons the days before the flood, providing details not found in chapter 5. He tells them: 6F

By taking wives of all whom they chose, they created the beginning of impurity. They begat sons, the Nephilim. They were all different (from one another) and they would devour one another. The giants killed the Naphil, the Naphil killed the Elyo, the Elyo humankind,

 6 It is possible that the adaptation of this version of 1 En. 7:2 by Syncellus represents a preference for this form of the text over others, such as that of GPan, in order to avoid their vivid and disturbing accounts of cannibalism and the consumption of blood. See ADLER, Time Immemorial, 182. For this translation, see ADLER/TUFFIN, The Chronography of George Synkellos, 16–17. Consult also MOSSHAMMER, Georgii Syncelli, 12. 7 BROOKE, Genesis 1–11, 465–482. 8 GOFF, Warriors, Cannibals and Teachers of Evil, 92.

94  Matthew Goff and people one another. Everyone sold himself to commit violence and shed innocent blood. The earth was filled with violence (7:22–24). 9

The sequence of offspring is essentially that of Syncellus—giants, Naphil, Elyo. The emphasis of the sequence, unlike Syncellus, is not that they constitute three successive generations, although nothing in the text refutes this interpretation. They comprise a chain of transmission that delineates the spread of evil from the angels to these three groups, and from them to humans and then animals. The textual evidence for this passage is only in Geez, the manuscripts of which date to the fourteenth century or later, not in the ancient Hebrew manuscripts of Jubilees from Qumran or quotations of the composition in early Christian sources.

3 An Emphasis on Etymology: Established Critical Options for Interpreting Elioud The relationship between the sequence of giants in Jubilees and Syncellus has been understood in various ways. Charles argued that the Jubilees text is based on GSyn 7:2. He understood the Syncellus variant to be superior to the version in GPan. 10 Nickelsburg in his commentary tends to take the same position; his translation of Watchers includes the three generation sequence from Syncellus. 11 Recent scholarship has articulated the opinion that Jub. 7:22 is the older text, which Syncellus then incorporated into his account of Watchers. Bhayro has stridently argued for a variant of this position; Milik and Bartelmus have endorsed this thesis as well. 12 Syncellus (or perhaps his sources Annianus or  9 This is from my translation for the forthcoming The Jewish Annotated Apocrypha. The extra details regarding the flood in this speech of Noah come in the context of him trying to ensure that they do not turn away from God or be swayed by demons (7:27). He explains that the flood happened because of three things—fornication, impurity, and violence (v. 21)—and that his grandsons should be wary of these three things. Most Ethiopic manuscripts read “Naphidim,” which is a textual error for “Nephilim” (so corrected here), as is suggested by the term “Naphil” later in the verse. So also VANDERKAM, The Book of Jubilees, 2.47. 10 CHARLES, The Ethiopic Version of the Book of Enoch, 17. 11 NICKELSBURG, 1 Enoch 1, 13, 182. 12 BHAYRO, The Shemihazah and Asael Narrative, 141; MILIK, The Books of Enoch, 73, 157, 240; BARTELMUS, Heroentum in Israel und seiner Umwelt, 157. Michael A. Knibb argues against the antiquity of Syncellus over Panopolitanus regarding 1 En. 7:2. See his The Ethiopic Book of Enoch, 2.78.

A New Suggestion Concerning the Enigmatic Elioud of the Book of the Watchers  95

Panodorus) did utilize a Greek version of Jubilees, which he called “Little Genesis” (also a name for the book in Ethiopian Christianity). 13 It is possible that his excerpts of Watchers are shaped by his familiarity with a version of antediluvian history adapted from Jubilees. It is well known, however, that Jubilees knows of and utilizes some form of Enochic writings, including a version of Watchers. As I discuss below, the giants-Naphil-Elyo sequence in Jub. 7:22 likely reflects reliance upon a form of Watchers that attested the three-fold sequence of giants like the one preserved in Syncellus. Scholars have put forward different proposals for understanding the etymology of the enigmatic term Ἐλιούδ. A leading option is to understand it as a type of theophoric. Delcor, while arguing that “le mystère demeure sur l’origine d’Elioud,” suggested that Elioud may be a translation of ‫( אליהוד‬literally “the Glory of El”), signifying the “Glorious Ones of God.” 14 Nickelsburg proposes that the final delta of the word could be an error for a lambda or an alpha. 15 The latter option would suggest at issue is a Yahwistic theophoric. In his scenario Elioud may derive from an expression such as ‫על יהוה‬, signifying that the giants are “anti-gods.” Several of the names of the giants in the Book of Giants, as Milik and Nickelsburg have observed, appear to be Yahwistic theophorics, such as Hahyah and Mahaway. 16 Kahana and Feitlowitz, in their translation of 1 Enoch into modern Hebrew, likewise apparently understand the term as a type of theophoric. 17 They translate Ἐλιούδ with ‫עליונים‬. 18 This seems to presuppose an interpretation not unlike Nickelsburg’s, that Elioud reflects some sort of error in the transmission of the term into Greek. The Greek delta, so understood, (mis)represents the Hebrew nun. So understood, the term evokes not only an important epithet of God (“Most High”) but also conveys that the Elioud are tall, since ‫ עליון‬can also mean “upper” or “high” (e.g., 2 Kgs 18:17; 4Q216 5 4). 19 18F

 13 For example, Syncellus states (ADLER/TUFFIN, The Chronography, 11) that both Josephus and “Little Genesis” testify that originally all animals spoke, explaining why the serpent was able to converse with Eve. Josephus and Jubilees do indeed attest this tradition (Ant. 1.41; Jub. 3:28– 29; so too Philo, Opif. 156). 14 DELCOR, Le Mythe de la chute des anges, 40. He does not engage how this understanding of Elioud would impact the interpretation of the watchers myth. 15 1 Enoch 1, 185. 16 NICKELSBURG, 1 Enoch 1, 185; MILIK, The Books of Enoch, 427. 17 KAHANA/FEITLOWITZ, ‫חנוך א׳‬, 32. 18 They include the Syncellus variant in the apparatus rather than the main text of their translation. They emphasize that the three types of giants in GSyn constitute an interpretation of the three terms of Gen 6:4, as discussed below. 19 Note also that the name Elioud appears in the genealogy of Matthew 1 (v. 14). Antediluvian history is not a theme in this genealogy. It appears to be simply a variant of the name Elihu.

96  Matthew Goff Another established option is to interpret Elioud as derived from a form of ‫ילד‬. Black traces the crux to an Aramaic word that signifies offspring, ‫ילודין‬. 20 Tigchelaar has also argued that the term derives from this root. 21 It is reasonable to think that some form of ‫ ילד‬lies behind the Greek word Elioud. The key passage describes their birth. The fragmentary text of 4Q201 iii 16–17 that attests a form of this verse, cited above, twice uses ‫ ילד‬terminology. 22 Elioud is the third item of a sequence of giants, after giants and Nephilim. The third descriptor in Gen 6:4, after giants and Nephilim, is “the men of renown,” literally “men of the name” (‫)אנשי השם‬. 23 The term Elioud may be derived from a combination of ‫אל‬ and ‫( ילד‬or perhaps ‫)ילוד‬, understood as a loose paraphrase of ‫אנשי השם‬, with “the name” interpreted as a reference to God. 24 Elioud would thus convey the semi-divine status of this generation of giants, with their name evoking their human (“men”) and divine (“the name”) lineage. 23F

4 The Wild Ass in the Animal Apocalypse and the Elioud as a Transition from the Antediluvian Period to the Early History of Israel Scholarly reflection on the term Elioud has generally focused on its etymology. While this is a valid enterprise, more attention should be given to its function in  Some LXX manuscripts give the name Elihu in 1 Chron 12:20 (‫ )אליהוא‬as Elioud. See DAVIES/ALLISON, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 1.181. 20 Matthew Black suggests the term ‫ ילודין‬may have been in the lacuna of 4Q201 1 iii 17. See his The Book of Enoch, 126. Consult also BHAYRO, The Shemihazah and Asael Narrative, 141. 21 Tigchelaar, Prophets of Old, 212–213. See also the end of this essay. 22 Note also the term ‫ וילדו‬in Gen 6:4. 23 The excerpt of Watchers in Syncellus under discussion assumes that these three terms in Gen 6:4 describe the same basic group (the three generations of giants). As is well-known, the term Nephilim has been understood in various ways. There is a tradition, for example, preserved in the targums that the term Nephilim in Gen 6:4 refers to the fathers of the giants, not the giants themselves. In Targum Pseudo-Jonathan the text which corresponds to the phrase “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days” of Gen 6:4 (MT) is “Shemḥazai and Azael fell (‫ )נפלן‬from heaven and were on the earth in those days.” Also note that Syncellus attests a variant in 1 En. 16:1 which mentions not only the “giants,” as in the Geez, but rather “the giants, Napheleim,” followed by “the mighty of the earth, the great ones of renown,” a clear allusion to the third descriptor in Gen 6:4 (§46). See MOSSHAMMER, Chronographia, 26; ADLER /TUFFIN, The Chronography, 35; WEVERS, Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis, 77–78. 24 NICKELSBURG, 1 Enoch 1, 185.

A New Suggestion Concerning the Enigmatic Elioud of the Book of the Watchers  97

the sequence of giants in which it is found. While it is reasonable to interpret the term Elioud by concentrating on 1 En. 7:2 vis-à-vis Gen 6:4, one other text merits consideration—the Animal Apocalypse. 25 This text, commonly dated to the second century BCE, preserves an ancient retelling of the watchers myth. While in this text a particular group normally corresponds to one kind of animal (the Israelites as sheep, for example, or the Egyptians as wolves; e.g., 1 En. 89:15), the offspring of the watchers constitute the only group configured as three animals—elephants, camels and wild asses (e.g., 1 En. 86:4; 88:2). 26 The key terms, respectively, are in Aramaic ‫פיליא‬, ‫גמליא‬, and ‫ערדיא‬, and in Geez nagēyāt, ʾagmāl, and ʾaʾdug. They attack and devour other creatures, conveying the theme of antediluvian violence (86:5–6). 27 The antiquity of this sequence of animals is confirmed by the Dead Sea Scrolls, which includes an Aramaic form of the composition in which the “[asses and camels] and elephants” drown in the waters of the flood (4Q206 4 i 21; 89:6). 28 This three-fold characterization of the giants suggests that the Animal Apocalypse reconfigured a version of Watchers that had three types of giants. Unlike Syncellus, however, there is no sense in the Animal Apocalypse that they represent successive generations. This composition nevertheless makes it reasonable to understand the three generation sequence of giants attested in both GSyn and Jubilees as an authentic element of 26F

27F

 25 HOGAN, The Watchers Traditions, 107–119; OLSON, Enoch; TILLER, A Commentary. 26 GORE-JONES, Animals, Humans, Angels and God, 280. 27 GOFF, Monstrous Appetites, 19–42; OLSON, Enoch, 190. 28 This follows the transcription of the text suggested by NICKELSBURG, 1 Enoch 1, 368; TILLER, A Commentary, 163–164, see also 264–265; and MILIK, The Books of Enoch, 238. In this reading the word “elephants” is followed by ‫“( ירו‬they cast,” denoting that the animals were thrown off the boat), and then [‫מי֯ ]ן‬. One should note however that there is no space between the last two words of 4Q206 4 i 21. Thus Klaus Beyer supplements “camels” before the extant term “elephants” and then transcribes [‫ורימי]א‬, “und Wildrindern.” So reconstructed, this would be the three-fold sequence of animals one would expect, with ‫ רים‬denoting the third in the sequence, which he understands as a pun on mamzer, “bastard” (see below on 1 En. 10:9). This reconstruction is also in KNIBB, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch, 2.200. This reading is intriguing but the transcription [‫ ירו מ י֯ ]ן‬should be preferred, as otherwise the clause would be without a verb. Also there is no evidence in the extant literature of ancient Judaism that the ‫רים‬, a wild ox that appears in rabbinic iterations of the flood (often spelled ‫)ראם‬, as in, for example, Gen. Rab. 31:13 or b. Zebaḥ. 113b, is ever used to signify the third type of giant under discussion. Also, 4Q206 4 i 21 is the only ancient Aramaic witness to the sequence of animals that represents the giants. The terms “ass” and “camel” here are reasonably supplemented since these three animals occur together frequently in the composition. The Ethiopic here is ʾaʾdug, which corresponds in the Animal Apocalypse to ‫ערדיא‬. So while the term has not survived in 4Q206 4 i 21 it is reasonable to reconstruct it in this line. See BEYER, Die aramäischen Texte, 1.244; COHN, Noah’s Flood, 35.

98  Matthew Goff antediluvian lore that was in circulation during the late Second Temple period. The conception of the giants as comprising three distinct but related groups may also underlie the description of the sons of the watchers in 1 En. 10:9. There God, as part of his commission of Gabriel to punish the giants, uses three synonymous expressions to describe them: “bastards,” “half-breeds,” and “sons of miscegenation.” 29 The employment of three terms may presuppose that there are three categories of giants. 30 The kinds of animals that signify the giants in the Animal Apocalypse suggests the composition adapted a form of the three-fold sequence in the Syncellus text of Watchers. The Aramaic term for “elephant” (‫ )פיל‬resonates with Nephilim (‫)נפילים‬. The word for “camel” (‫ )גמל‬is phonetically similar to “giant” (‫)גבר‬, more so in Aramaic than Hebrew, with both terms beginning with the same letter; their final letters (“l” and “r,” respectively) are two liquid phonemes that sound similar and often interchange. The linguistic situation is similar with ‫ ערד‬vis-à-vis Elioud. 31 Both words begin with letters that sound similar. They have the same final consonant and, regarding the second consonant of both words, one again finds an l/r correspondence. ‫ ערד‬is phonetically closer to Elioud than Elyo, suggesting that the Animal Apocalypse drew upon a sequence of three kinds of giants that was closer to that in Syncellus than Jubilees 7. 32 This favors the antiquity of the Syncellus sequence over that of Jubilees. The term ‫ ערד‬denotes a type of wild ass or onager. In Targum PseudoJonathan a form of this word is used for the description of Ishmael in Gen 16:12, “a wild ass of man” (‫ ;ערוד בבני־נשא‬Heb. ‫)פרא אדם‬. 33 The animal appears elsewhere in the Animal Apocalypse, whereas the elephants and camels do not. After the flood a range of vicious animals such as dogs and wolves emerge (89:10). None of the three animals who were responsible for the antediluvian violence is included in this sequence of animals, but they, not unlike the ele31F

32F

 29 This follows GPan and the Ethiopic. Both GPan and GSyn attest a tripartite description of the giants in this verse, but the latter reads “giants” where GPan has “bastards.” The Aramaic Watchers texts provide no clear version of this polemical description of the giants (cf. 4Q202 1 iv 5). See BHAYRO, The Shemihazah and Asael Narrative, 99, 192–194; NICKELSBURG, 1 Enoch 1, 217. 30 Note Jub. 7:21 (see note 9 above), which attributes the flood to three forms of iniquity. 31 Scholars have observed this correspondence but to the best of my knowledge not substantively examined its significance. See MILIK, The Books of Enoch, 240; TILLER, A Commentary, 242–243 (who supposes that several letters were transposed to explain a change from ‫ ילדו‬to “Elioud”); NICKELSBURG, 1 Enoch 1, 373. 32 TILLER, A Commentary, 274. 33 Cf. Dan 5:21; Job 39:5.

A New Suggestion Concerning the Enigmatic Elioud of the Book of the Watchers  99

phants, camels and asses, bite another. The spread of violence and evil in the world after the flood resembles the antediluvian crisis (so too Jub. 11:2). This chaotic situation is the context in which Abraham is born. He is depicted, like Noah and other major patriarchs, as a white bull (89:10). He is the father of a wild ass and a white bull, denoting, respectively, Ishmael and Isaac. The verse also states “the wild asses increased” (v. 11). The Ethiopic for “wild asses” is ʾaʾduga gadām. 4Q205 2 i 25 confirms that the term for these animals is ‫ערד‬. 34 The passage also uses this word to denote the Midianites. 35 Neither the Rephaim nor the Anakim, who according to Num 13:33 are descended from the Nephilim, appear in the Animal Apocalypse. The wild ass in this composition however helps establish a comparable point—that some Gentile peoples in the early days of Canaan are akin to the giants of the antediluvian age. The wild ass in the Animal Apocalypse sheds interpretive light on the three fold sequence of giants in Syncellus. The Elioud is third in the sequence of antediluvian giants, the last of the three generations. The Animal Apocalypse makes an explicit link between the “wild ass,” typically the third item in its sequence of antediluvian giants, and early inhabitants of Canaan. Since the Aramaic for wild ass (‫ )ערד‬can be reasonably understood as a pun on the underlying term for the third generation of giants preserved in Syncellus, the word Elioud, or rather the Semitic term underlying it, could denote a generation of giants that was an important precursor to subsequent early peoples of the land. Connecting the antediluvian giants to post-flood Canaanites is not a theme in any version of Watchers, although as discussed below, ancient forms of the text relate that the offspring of the watchers themselves have children. Later rabbinic literature utilizes a three generation format to connect the antediluvian sons of the watchers to the early peoples of the Canaan. B. Niddah 61a states that “Siḥon and Og were the sons of Aḥijah the son of Shamḥazai.” Siḥon and Og are early kings of Canaan who are paired in the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Num 32:33; Deut 1:4). The name Aḥijah (‫ )אחיה‬is a form of the name Ohyah (‫ )אוהיא‬known from the Qumran Book of the Giants; he is the brother of Hahyah,  34 This term is plausibly reconstructed in the other Qumran witness to this verse, 4Q206 4 ii 10–11. 35 For example, in 1 En. 89:13, twelve sheep hand over one of their own to the wild asses, a reference to Joseph becoming a slave. The Animal Apocalypse does not attest the distinction between the Ishmaelites and Midianites found in Gen 37:27–28. Here too the key term is ʾadg/‫ערד‬. This is confirmed by two Aramaic witnesses from Qumran (4Q205 2 i 28; 4Q206 4 ii 15). The term “wild ass” appears again in 1 En. 89:16 to signify the people to whom Moses escapes when he flees Egypt (Exodus 2-3). The Ethiopic is ʾaʾduga gadām. The Aramaic here has not survived but is reasonably supplemented in 4Q206 4 ii 20 as ‫ערדיא‬.

100  Matthew Goff both of whom are sons of the watchers in this text. The talmudic passage attests a three generation sequence, watcher-giant-Rephaim. There is similar material in a late rabbinic tale often called “the Midrash of Shemḥazai and Azael.” 36 A version of this story is available in several sources, one of which is contained in an extended quotation of Bereshit Rabbati found in a thirteenth century treatise written by the Dominican scholar Raymond Martin, the Pugio Fidei. A manuscript of Bereshit Rabbati discovered in Prague later confirmed the authenticity of this excerpt in Pugio, which had been questioned. 37 The tale relates, as an explication of Num 13:33 and Gen 6:4 attributed to Rabbi Zadok (first century), that Shemḥazai had two sons, whose names were Hiyya and Ḥiyya (‫)הייה וחייה‬, and that they took wives who gave birth to Siḥon and Og. The names Hiyya and Ḥiyya are another form of the names of the brothers Ohyah and Hahyah ( ‫ההיה‬ ‫ )ואוהיה‬from the Book of Giants. 38 While the giants often function as a by-word for the fate that awaits those who are wicked in Second Temple literature (e.g., Wis 14:6; 3 Macc 2:4), this is not the case with the generational sequence watcher-giant-Rephaim in b. Nidd. 61a and Bereshit Rabbati. Rather it functions as a link between the primordial period and the early history of the land. While b. Nidd. 61a and Bereshit Rabbati are late texts, the fact that they preserve variants of the names of giants found in the Dead Sea Scrolls indicates that they transmit authentic ancient Jewish traditions regarding the antediluvian giants. This suggests that they include a variation of the three generation format that circulated in the late Second Temple period. An interest in linking the giants to early inhabitants of the land presumably arose to help explain the origins of such peoples. This question is brought up by Num 13:33 which claims, without explanation, that the Anakim derive from the Nephilim. The three generation schema may also be an effort to explain the ambiguous 120 years of Gen 6:3, since this figure, if one goes by the conventional length of forty years for a generation, would correspond to three generations. 39 Other late Second Temple texts, while not attesting the three generation motif, depict the sons of the angels as having children and mingle conceptions of the giants and early peoples of the land. Two Aramaic witnesses from Qumran to 1 En. 14:6 state that the watchers are to see the elimination of “your be37 F

38F

 36 For a useful discussion of this text, see REED, Fallen Angels, 258–268. 37 ALBECK, Midraš Berešit Rabbati, 1–2, 29; LIEBERMAN, Raymund Martini, 285–300. 38 In another iteration of “the Midrash of Shemḥazai and Azael” in the Book of Memory ( ‫ספר‬ ‫ )הזכרונות‬compiled by Eleazar ben Asher in the fourteenth century, the names are Heyya and Aheyya (‫)הייא ואהייא‬, which is also close to the names ‫ ההיה ואוהיה‬of the Qumran Book of Giants. See MILIK, The Books of Enoch, 333; YASSIF, The Book of Memory. 39 KUGEL, The Bible As It Was, 112–114.

A New Suggestion Concerning the Enigmatic Elioud of the Book of the Watchers  101

loved ones” and “their sons” (4Q202 1 vi 8–10; 4Q204 1 vi 15–17), whereas the Greek and the Ethiopic have forms of “your beloved sons.” The use of the third person in the Aramaic indicates, since the watchers are being directly addressed, that “their sons” refers not to the giants but rather the sons of the giants. The Book of Giants may likewise mention the sons of the giants (4Q203 8 8). 40 Ben Sira also shows overlap between the giants of Enochic tradition and the early peoples of Canaan (16:7). 41 Several texts, including Sir 16:7, thematically link the giants of old and the people of Sodom, without attesting a sequence of three generations. 42 Book 1 of the Sibylline Oracles, generally considered to be a Jewish text that was adapted and expanded by Christians, likely attests an iteration of three generation motif. A ten generation sequence is a major structural motif of Sib. Or. 1 and 2. The watchers are in the second generation (1.88–103). There are three generations between this generation and that of the flood, the fifth. The fifth generation is not a distinct group of giants but  40 The key text is often transcribed as stating “those ones [and their] son[s and] the wi]ves o[f …” The text, purportedly written on a tablet written by Enoch addressed to “Shemiḥazah and all [his] com[panions]” (l. 5), describes divine judgment against the watchers and the giants. Line 7 mentions “your (pl.) activity” and the wives of the addressees, so the line probably condemns the sexual activity of the watchers. It follows that the expression “those ones” in line 8 refers not to the watchers who have just been addressed directly but rather their offspring the giants. Thus the reference to sons and wives in that line likely refers to those of the giants, rather than their fathers. See STUCKENBRUCK, The Book of Giants from Qumran, 90. In the Book of Giants of the Manichaean tradition, a text from late antiquity that preserves extensive Jewish traditions regarding the sons of the watchers, this group has wives (M101j). See HENNING, The Book of the Giants, 60; GOFF, Wild Cannibals or Repentant Sinners?, 95–105. Also note an early Christian adaptation of the Enochic giants tradition in the PseudoClementine Homilies contains avariation of the trope that the giants have children. In this work the giants are destroyed in the flood and afterwards their souls are transformed into a new race. The law promulgated afterwards (adapting Genesis 9) is directed towards them. This is explained as necessary because of the possibility that they shall want children: “For being bastards in race, of the fire of angels and the blood of women, and therefore liable to desire a certain race of their own” (Hom. 8.18). For an overview of this text and its relationship to Enochic traditions, see TIGCHELAAR, Manna-Eaters and Man-Eaters, 92–114. ̈ 41 The text asserts that “the chieftains of old” (‫ ;נסיכי קדם‬Syr. ‫ܩܕܡܝܐ‬ ‫ ̈ܡܠܟܐ‬, “the ancient kings”) were not forgiven for rebelling against God “with their strength” (‫)בגבורתם‬. This term “chieftain” often refers to early peoples of the land (e.g., Josh 13:21; Ps 83:12).The Greek however has in 16:7 “ancient giants.” The emphasis on “strength” suggests an allusion to the antediluvian giants (‫ )גבורים‬was present in the Hebrew Vorlage even though it is now clear that the Hebrew had a term that evokes early inhabitants of the land. For further discussion, see GOFF, Ben Sira and the ‘Giants,’ 645–654. 42 See, for example, 3 Macc. 2:4–5; Jub. 20:5; T. Naph. 3:5–4:1; 2 Pet 2:4–6; Jud 6–7 (cf. Gen. Rab. 26:5).

102  Matthew Goff rather a “far inferior race of men” whom Noah unsuccessfully urges to repent (ll. 120, 147–198). As Lightfoot observes, the men of the third through fifth generations can be understood as a euhemeristic adaptation of the three generation motif found in 1 En. 7:2 GSyn. 43

5 Conclusion The choice of the “wild ass” (‫ )ערד‬to be the third animal representing the giants in the Animal Apocalypse suggests it reformulates some form of the term Elioud found in Syncellus and then uses this same animal to denote an early Gentile people. This indicates that some form of the three generation sequence preserved in Syncellus was in circulation in ancient Judaism. It implies that the Semitic term reformulated as Elioud could denote a type of antediluvian giant thought to be like some of the early peoples of the land or, as in Numbers 13, early ancestors of the aboriginal Canaanites. It follows that Elioud in ancient Judaism could signify giants who were thought to have somehow survived the flood, even though this function is not explicit in Syncellus. Tigchelaar, when he argues that Elioud should be understood as derived from (‫יליד)ין‬, contends that it should be understood not simply in the sense of “child,” but rather as the “descendants.” 44 As he observes, the root is used to denote the Anaqim ( ‫ילידי‬ ‫ ;הענק‬Num 13:22, 28; Josh 15:14)—the very group that Numbers 13 links to the Nephilim. 45 As I have argued, the term Elioud may be the product of a combination of ‫ אל‬and a form of ‫( ילד‬perhaps ‫)ילוד‬, loosely based upon the phrase ‫אנשי‬ ‫ השם‬of Gen 6:4, signifying the semi-divine status of these creatures. While the precise form of the Semitic term underlying the word Elioud remains opaque, the crux could convey a double meaning that enriches our understanding of ancient Jewish speculation about the sons of the watchers—that the Elioud are “descendants” of the watchers and also the forefathers of early inhabitants of Canaan.

 43 LIGHTFOOT, The Sibylline Oracles, 362. 44 TIGCHELAAR, Prophets of Old, 212–213. 45 The term also appears several times in 2 Samuel 21 in relation to champions of the Philistine army, which includes Goliath. They may be presented as “descendants of the Rephaim” ( ‫ילידי‬ ‫ )הרפה‬in vv. 16, 18. See DOAK, The Last of the Rephaim, 109–113; WILLESEN, The Philistine Corps, 327–335; L’HEUREUX, The yelîdê hārāpā, 83–85.

A New Suggestion Concerning the Enigmatic Elioud of the Book of the Watchers  103

Bibliography ADLER, William, Time Immemorial: Archaic History and Its Sources in Christian Chronography from Julius Africanus to George Syncellus, Washington 1989. ADLER, William / TUFFIN, Paul, The Chronography of George Synkellos: A Byzantine Chronicle of Universal History from the Creation, Oxford 2002. ALBECK, Henoch, Midraš Berešit Rabbati, ex libro R. Mosis Haddaršan collectus e codice Pragensi, Jerusalem 1940. BARTELMUS, Rüdiger, Heroentum in Israel und seiner Umwelt: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Gen. 6,1–4 und verwandten Texten im Alten Testament und der altorientalischen Literatur (ATANT 65), Zürich 1979. BEYER, Klaus, Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer (2 vols.), Göttingen 1984. BHAYRO, Siam, The Shemihazah and Asael Narrative of 1 Enoch 6–11 (AOAT 322), Münster 2005. BLACK, Matthew,The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch: A New English Edition with Commentary and Notes (SVTP 7), Leiden 1985. BROOKE, George J., Genesis 1–11 in the Light of Some Aspects of the Transmission of Genesis in Late Second Temple Times: HeBAI 1 (2012) 465–482. CHARLES, Robert H., The Ethiopic Version of the Book of Enoch: Edited from Twenty-Three MSS. Together with the Fragmentary Greek and Latin Versions, Oxford 1906. COHN, Norman, Noah’s Flood: The Genesis Story in Western Thought, New Haven 1996. DAVIES, W.D. / ALLISON, Dale C., The Gospel According to Saint Matthew (3 vols.) Edinburgh 1988. DELCOR, Mathias, Le Mythe de la chute des anges et de l’origine des géants comme explication du mal dans le monde dans l’apocalyptique juive: Histoire des traditions: RHR 190 (1976) 3–53. DOAK, Brian R., The Last of the Rephaim: Conquest and Cataclysm in the Heroic Ages of Ancient Israel, Boston/Washington 2012. GOFF, Matthew, Ben Sira and the ‘Giants’: A Note on Sir 16:7: JBL 129 (2010) 645–654. GOFF, Matthew, Monstrous Appetites: Giants, Cannibalism and Insatiable Eating in Enochic Literature: JAJ 1 (2010) 19–42. GOFF, Matthew, Warriors, Cannibals and Teachers of Evil: The Sons of the Angels in Genesis 6, the Book of the Watchers and the Book of Jubilees: SEÅ 80 (2015) 79–97. GOFF, Matthew, Wild Cannibals or Repentant Sinners? The Value of the Manichaean Book of Giants for Understanding the Qumran Book of Giants, in: E. Hunter and S. Lieu (eds.), Manichaeism East and West, Turnhout 2017, 95–105. GOFF, Matthew, The Book of Jubilees, in: J. Klawans and L. Wills (eds.), The Jewish Annotated Apocrypha, New York, forthcoming. GORE-JONES, Lydia, Animals, Humans, Angels and God: Animal Symbolism in the Historiography of the ‘Animal Apocalypse’ of 1 Enoch: JSP 24 (2015) 268–287. HENDEL, Ronald, Mind the Gap: Modern and Postmodern in Biblical Studies: JBL 133 (2014) 422– 443. HENDEL, Ronald, The Untimeliness of Biblical Philology: Philology 1 (2015) 9–28. HENNING, Walter B., The Book of the Giants: BSOAS 11 (1943–46) 52–74. L’HEUREUX, Conrad E., The yelîdê hārāpā: A Cultic Association of Warriors: BASOR 221 (1976) 83–85.

104  Matthew Goff HOGAN, Karina Martin, The Watchers Traditions in the Book of the Watchers and the Animal Apocalypse, in: A. Kim Harkins et al. (eds.), The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions, Minneapolis 2014, 107–119. KAHANA, Abraham / FEITLOWITZ, Jacob, ‫חנוך א׳‬, in A. Kahana (ed.), ‫הספרים החיצוניםלתורה לנביאים‬ ‫( לכתובים ושאר ספרים חיצונים‬2 vols.), Jerusalem 1978, 1.19–101. KAUFMANN, Walter (ed.), The Portable Nietzsche, New York 1982. KNIBB, Michael A., The Ethiopic Book of Enoch (2 vols.), Oxford 1978. KUGEL, James L., The Bible As It Was, Cambridge 1997. LIEBERMAN, Saul, Raymund Martini and His Alleged Forgeries, in: idem, Texts and Studies, New York 1974. LIGHTFOOT, J.L., The Sibylline Oracles: With Introduction, Translation, and Commentary on the First and Second Books, Oxford 2007. MILIK, Józef T., The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4, Oxford 1976. MOSSHAMMER, Alden A., Georgii Syncelli Ecloga Chronographica, Leipzig 1984. NICKELSBURG, George W.E., 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36, 81– 108 (Hermeneia), Minneapolis 2001. OLSON, Daniel, Enoch: A New Translation, North Richland Hills 2004. REED, Annette Yoshiko, Fallen Angels and the History of Judaism and Christianity: The Reception of Enochic Literature, New York 2005. STUCKENBRUCK, Loren T., The Book of Giants from Qumran: Texts, Translation, and Commentary (TSAJ 63), Tübingen 1997. TIGCHELAAR, Eibert J.C., Prophets of Old and the Day of the End: Zechariah, the Book of Watchers and Apocalyptic (OTS 35), Leiden 1996. TIGCHELAAR, Eibert J.C., Manna-Eaters and Man-Eaters: Food of Giants and Men in the PseudoClementine Homilies 8, in: J.N. Bremmer (ed.), The Pseudo-Clementines (SECA 10), Leuven 2010, 92–114. TILLER, Patrick A., A Commentary on the Animal Apocalypse of 1 Enoch (SBLEJL 4), Atlanta 1993. VANDERKAM, James C., The Book of Jubilees: Critical Text and Translation (2 vols., CSCO 510–511, SE 87–88), Leuven 1989. WEVERS, John William, Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis (SBLSCS 35), Atlanta 1993. WILLESEN, F., The Philistine Corps of the Scimitar from Gath: JSS 3 (1958) 327–335. YASSIF, Eli, The Book of Memory, that is The Chronicles of Jerahmeʾel, Tel Aviv 2001.

Greg Schmidt Goering

Simon and the Actualization of Wisdom in the Jerusalem Temple Abstract: Scholars have highlighted Ben Sira’s ethical teaching while downplaying his treatment of ritual. This article demonstrates that Ben Sira also held in high esteem the ritual commandments of the Torah, and it shows the centrality of Israel’s cultic piety to the sage’s understanding of Wisdom. Specifically, it argues that Ben Sira understood the activities of Simon the High Priest to be an actualization of primordial Wisdom within the Jerusalem temple. The sage constructs his portrait of Wisdom and Simon as ideal figures from the scriptural traditions he inherited. Keywords: Ben Sira, Sirach, Simon, Wisdom, Jerusalem Temple, fear of YHWH, cult, piety

1 Introduction The book of Sirach (ca. 185 BCE) expresses one dimension of Israel’s devotion to YHWH in terms of ethical piety. 1 This ethical teaching is unsurprising, given the prominence of ethics in earlier Israelite wisdom literature, on which Ben Sira’s book builds. 2 Less well explored by scholars, however is his development of a cultic dimension to Israel’s piety. In this essay I shall show that Ben Sira associates wisdom with the fear of YHWH through a cultic piety in which the pious Jew actualizes wisdom through the Jerusalem temple. Although Ben Sira’s instruction regarding the cult takes up less space in his work than his ethical teaching, it occupies no less important a place in his understanding of the particular piety to which Israel is called. In the latter part of the essay, I demonstrate how Ben Sira portrays the figure of Simon the High Priest in terms of antecedent biblical traditions. Along with other essays in this volume, I show how the sage uses earlier authoritative

 1 See GOERING, Wisdom's Root Revealed, 153–166. This essay draws upon Chapter Five of my monograph, and I thank Brill for permission to reuse this material. 2 In this essay, I use “Ben Sira” as a shorthand to refer to the “author” of the book of Sirach. As Wright has argued, we cannot take the book as autobiographical; rather the text constructs the authorial voice as an exemplary sage (WRIGHT, Ben Sira on the Sage as Exemplar, 165–182).

https://doi.org/10.1515/ 9783110596373-007

106  Greg Schmidt Goering writings to construct the ideal figure of Simon. In the conclusion, I will ask whether the reverse is also true: did the figure of Simon shape subsequent scriptures in early Judaism? I happily dedicate this essay to Ben Wright, who has mentored me over the years. I have benefited tremendously not only from Ben’s prolific scholarship but also from his gentle, insightful prodding that has pushed me to question my own preconceived notions and those scholarly conventions we have all received. If our generation of Sirach scholars has been able to see further than a previous generation, it is because, to paraphrase Isaac Newton, we have stood on the shoulders of giants like Ben.

2 Cultic Piety in Sirach Not all scholars agree that Ben Sira is genuinely interested in the cult. Some argue that Ben Sira is really interested only in ethical, and not ritual, matters. Patrick Skehan and Alexander Di Lella, for example, contend, “For Ben Sira, concern for social justice is far more important and central to authentic religion than any prescribed ritual, no matter how colorful or emotionally satisfying it may be.” 3 Ben Sira is keenly interested, however, to recommend observance of the ritual as well as the ethical laws. Ben Sira’s motivations in commending both types of regulations are multiple: their observance benefits the practitioner, the poor person, and the priest; their observance is commanded by YHWH, and nonobservance has negative consequences; and, finally, Israel’s observance of the commands actualizes wisdom, which renews and sustains creation and, thus, benefits all humankind, indeed the whole world. Sir 7:27–30 connects piety to covenant loyalty and reveals the Deuteronomic influence behind Ben Sira’s notion that fear of YHWH involves love of YHWH, that is, covenant loyalty. 4

 3 SKEHAN/DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 88, citing SNAITH, Ben Sira's Supposed Love of the Liturgy, 167–174, presumably with approval. See also SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach, xxiv; PFEIFFER, History of New Testament Times, 375; and DUESBERG/FRANSEN, Les scribes inspirés, 712–715. Duesberg and Fransen argue that Ben Sira elevates the ethical commandments over the cultic ones. Crenshaw suggests that Ben Sira spiritualizes the cultic requirements yet nonetheless commends their performance (CRENSHAW, Old Testament Wisdom, 141). 4 The Nash Papyrus suggests that Deut 6:4–9 was used liturgically as early as the second century BCE. Albright dates the MS to the second half of the second century (ALBRIGHT, A

Simon and the Actualization of Wisdom in the Jerusalem Temple  107

Sir 7:27a b 28a b 29a b 30a b Sir 7:27a b 28a b 29a b 30a b

‫]בכל לבך כבד אביך‬ ‫ואם תחוללך אל תשכח‬ ‫זכר כי מהם היית‬ [‫ומה תגמל להם כגמולם לך‬ ‫בכל נפשך פחד אל‬ ‫ואת כהניו הקדיש‬ ‫בכל מאודך אהוב עושך‬ 5 ‫ואת משרתיו לא תעזב‬ [With all your heart honor your father, and the mother who bore you do not forget. Remember that from them you came into being; How can you repay them according to what they have done for you?] With all your soul, fear God, and his priests treat as sacred. With all your strength, love your maker, and his servants do not neglect.

This passage offers an interpretation of Deut 6:5, from which Ben Sira derives the initial phrases of 27a, 29a, and 30a (see underlined portions) verbatim. Deut 6:5 Deut 6:5

‫ואהבת את יהוה אלהיך‬ ‫בכל־לבבך ובכל־נפשך ובכל־מאדך‬ You shall love YHWH your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength.

Thus, Sir 7:27–30 elaborates what it means in Deut 6:5 to “love YHWH” with all one’s heart, soul, and strength. For the sage, to love YHWH “with all your heart”  Biblical Fragment from the Maccabaean Age, 149). This suggests that the liturgical circulation of the Shema may also have been Ben Sira’s source for the Deuteronomic language. 5 In MS A, only verses 7:29–30 are extant, and a textual mishap is apparent. Skehan and Di Lella attribute the missing verses (vv 27–28) to homoioarchton. MS A reads: Sir 7:29 bkl lbk pḥd ʾl wʾt khnyw hqdyš 30 bkl mʾwdk ʾhwb ʿwśk wʾt m šrtyw lʾ tʿzb It seems that after copying bkl lbk, which corresponds to the beginning of v 27a in G, a scribe jumped to the next bkl, which according to G would have been bkl npš  k (ἐν ὅλῃ ψυχῇ σου) in 29a (SKEHAN/DI LELLA, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 206). One can also see from MS A that the 2ms pronominal suffix appears on mʾwdk, even though it is missing in G. For my reconstruction of vv 27–28, I have followed Segal and G (SEGAL, The Complete Book of Ben Sira, ‫)מז‬.

108  Greg Schmidt Goering means to honor father and mother. To love YHWH “with all your soul” means to fear God and treat God’s priests as holy. To love YHWH “with all your strength” means to love the creator and take care of those who serve him in the sacrificial cult. In this passage Ben Sira also draws a close connection between piety and cultic observance. In vv 29 and 30, Ben Sira suggests, through parallelistic structures, that fearing YHWH implies treating the priests as sacred (v 29), and that loving the creator entails giving those who serve in the sacrificial cult their priestly dues (v 30). 6 In the verse that immediately follows, Ben Sira makes clear that he intends to associate these acts closely: Sir 7:31a b c d Sir 7:31a b c d

‫כבד אל והדר כהן‬ ‫ות]ן ח[לקם כאשר צוותה‬ 7[‫לחם אברים ותרומת ]יד‬ ‫ צדק ותרומת קדש‬8[‫]זבחי‬

Glorify God and honor the priest, and give their portion as you have been commanded: the guilt-offering 9 and the [heave-]offering, [the sacrifices of] righteousness and the holy offering.

In v 31a, Ben Sira clearly links devotion to YHWH with giving honor to YHWH’s priests. Moreover, giving the priests their honor necessitates providing them with their portion of sacrifices per the stipulations of the covenant (v 31b). Ben Sira then lists various offerings, which are likely meant not as an exhaustive catalog of those he deems required but rather as examples. As Wright comments on this verse, “Performance of the cult and giving the priests their due is ele 6 See OLYAN, Ben Sira's Relationship to the Priesthood, 264. Beyond the implied semantic parallelism, Skehan and Di Lella note the chiastic structures within Sir 7:29 and 30, each of which closely allies those who serve in the sacrificial cult with YHWH (SKEHAN/DI LELLA, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 207). 7 G reads δόσιν βραχιόνων (gift of the shoulder), which may reflect Heb. yad. So OLYAN, Ben Sira’s Relationship to the Priesthood, 264, n. 11. 8 G reads the singular θυσίαν (sacrifice). 9 MS A lḥm ʾbrym is unintelligible. G reads πλημμελείας, and on this basis Smend emends to lḥm ʾšmym (guilt-offering), as does Stadelmann (SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach, 72; STADELMANN, Ben Sira als Schriftgelehrter, 56). The list of offerings in G, however, contains an additional item, and, as Olyan notes, G begins the list with ἀπαρχὴν (firstfruits; OLYAN, Ben Sira’s Relationship to the Priesthood, 264, n. 11). Nevertheless, for lack of a better alternative, I translate with the emendation of Smend and Stadelmann and note the caveat of Olyan.

Simon and the Actualization of Wisdom in the Jerusalem Temple  109

vated to the level of extending to God his proper honor.” 10 This passage would seem to provide a prima facie case that Ben Sira views participation in the sacrificial cult as part and parcel of Jewish piety. Numerous interpreters, however, do not consider Ben Sira’s concern in this passage to be about participation in the sacrificial cult per se. Rather, they insist, Ben Sira’s interest is social, not cultic. By encouraging participation in the sacrificial cult, the sage merely safeguards the welfare of the priests, whose livelihood depends upon receiving “their portion” of the sacrificial offerings. 11 The view that Ben Sira’s motives here are purely social usually involves reading Sir 7:29–31 with the following stanza (7:32–35), which treats almsgiving, rather than with the preceding verses (7:27–28), regarding honor of father and mother. 12 Sir 7:32–35 begins: Sir 7:32a Sir 7:32a

‫וגם לאביון הושיט יד‬ And also to the poor extend your hand.

The beginning of this colon (“And also”) would seem to connect this stanza and its theme of care for the needy with the concern to provide the priests with their portion. Thus, it is probably true that, when Ben Sira urges fulfillment of the required sacrificial offerings, he has in mind the well-being of the priests. As I will show, however, his motivations for cultic participation extend well beyond the social realm. Indeed, Sir 7:29–30 are intimately linked with 7:27–28 through their allusion to Deut 6:5. Dividing the literary structure between vv 28 and 29 separates the phrase “with your whole heart” (v 27) from the phrases “with all your soul” (v 29) and “with all your strength” (v 30), and thus destroys the Deuteronomic allusion. If one reads Sir 7:27–31 intact, as a commentary upon Deut 6:5, then one can see that Ben Sira urges fulfillment of the sacrificial requirements not purely out of social motives—that is, because they provide the priests’ liveli-

 10 WRIGHT, Fear the Lord and Honor the Priest, 193. 11 Marböck, e.g., says that the issue is not cultic but social duty: “Die positive Empfehlung der Abgaben für die Priester in 7,29–31 wird nicht als kultische, sondern als soziale Plicht betont im Zusammenhang des Verhaltens gegen verschiedene Menschengruppen” (MARBÖCK, Weisheit im Wandel, 87). Cf. HASPECKER, Gottesfurcht bei Jesus Sirach, 304, 12; and SNAITH, Ben Sira’s Supposed Love of the Liturgy, 168–169. 12 So SNAITH, Ben Sira’s Supposed Love of the Liturgy, 168–169.

110  Greg Schmidt Goering hood—but also because they are commanded by YHWH (7:31b). 13 One can go further and suggest that Ben Sira’s motivations are not only social and nomistic but also covenantal. Ben Sira does not promote the fulfillment of commandments just for the sake of the commandments, but because they are addressed to Israel in the context of its covenant with YHWH. Sirach 7:27–31 clearly places the commandments to offer sacrifices in the context of the individual’s relationship with his God. As Saul Olyan notes, “the striking and essential point” of these verses is the close connection Ben Sira draws between “the individual’s relationship with YHWH . . .[and] his/her relationship with the priesthood.” 14 While Olyan’s characterization of Sir 7:27–31 rightly points out the connection between the human-divine relationship and support of the cult, his interpretation of the passage remains on the level of the individual, the audience typically intended in Israel’s wisdom tradition. Olyan suggests that the allusion to Deut 6:5 by Ben Sira is “intentional” because “this passage [Deut 6:5] focuses on the nature of the individual’s relationship to YHWH.” 15 The Deuteronomic author, however, frequently shifts between the second person plural and singular, even within one passage. 16 Some scholars have suggested that this vacillation between the singular and plural signals composite authorship. 17 Indeed, this seems to explain the dual introduction to the book as a whole, but it does not adequately address the composition of Deuteronomy 6. 18 More likely, the grammatical switching between singular and plural is stylistic, and heightens the personal nature of the address. 19 By encouraging the participation of the individual in fulfilling the cultic requirements of the covenantal law, and by alluding to the Deuteronomic covenantal language, Ben Sira does more than address  13 Leo Perdue suggests that the following section on almsgiving indicates that social concern is one of Ben Sira’s motives, but he also notes that describing the sacrifices as “commanded” supplies “a second motivation for giving” (PERDUE, Wisdom and Cult, 251, n. 25). 14 OLYAN, Ben Sira’s Relationship to the Priesthood, 265. 15 OLYAN, Ben Sira’s Relationship to the Priesthood, 266. Italics added. 16 See, e.g., the larger context of the present speech in Deuteronomy. In Deut 6:1, the addressee is referred to in the plural, and in 6:2 in the singular; in 6:3 the singular is used, but Israel as a collective is the referent; in 6:4 the singular with collective referent Israel is used again, followed by the plural; and in 6:5 one again finds the singular. Cf. Deut 12 for another striking example of this vacillation between singular and plural. 17 See, e.g., MINNETTE DE TILLESSE, Sections 'tu' et sections 'vous' dans le Deutéronome, 29–87. 18 Alternatively, one could argue that all these singulars refer to Israel as a collective, as some occurrences certainly do. See n. 16, above. 19 On this shift between singular and plural, see BEGG, The Literary Criticism of Deut 4:1–40, 10–55; and idem, The Significance of Numeruswechsel in Dt, 116–124.

Simon and the Actualization of Wisdom in the Jerusalem Temple  111

the individual Israelite’s relationship to YHWH. He addresses the individual’s relationship to the Israelite God qua member of the covenant community. In Sir 34:21–35:13, Ben Sira treats participation in the sacrificial cult more fully. 20 The sage starkly contrasts the sacrifices offered by the “godless” (ἀσεβῶν, 34:23) with those offered by the righteous (δικαίου, 35:8–9). YHWH accepts the latter but rejects the former, and the different outcomes are directly connected to the ethical conduct of the offerer. As in the interpretation of Sir 7:29–31, numerous scholars have used Sir 34:21–35:13 to suggest that Ben Sira favors the ethical over the cultic. Collins, for example, argues that, for Ben Sira, “the ethical demands of the Law are more important than sacrifices.” As evidence, he quotes Sir 35:1–2: Sir 35:1 2

The one who keeps the Law makes many offerings; one who heeds the commandments makes an offering of well-being. 21

Collins continues: The point here is not that the Law requires many sacrifices (a point that Sirach would also grant) but that observance [of the ethical commandments] is the equivalent of many sacrifices . . . The point is that kindness and almsgiving are as effective as sacrifice in pleasing God. 22

But Collins’s interpretation of this passage misses the point entirely. For Ben Sira, both the cultic and the ethical prescriptions belong to the same corpus— the Torah. The issue for the sage is not whether ethics is more important than the cult: the importance of the cult is a given for him (see, for example, Sir 35:6– 9 and my discussion below). What concerns Ben Sira is the proper and improper use of the cultic system. 23 In Sir 34:21–31, Ben Sira asserts that cultic practice divorced from ethical behavior is ineffective. If one offers goods taken illicitly from the poor, YHWH  20 On this passage, see STADELMANN, Ben Sira als Schriftgelehrter, 68–138; and WRIGHT, Ben Sira as Defender of the Jerusalem Priesthood, 193–194. 21 The translation is from Collins, who follows the NRSV (COLLINS, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 90). For translation issues in these verses, see SKEHAN/DI LELLA, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 414. 22 COLLINS, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 90. 23 In this sense, Ben Sira continues the prophetic view that sacrifices offered insincerely are unacceptable. See, e.g., 1 Sam 15:22–23; Hos 6:4–6; Amos 5:21–25; Mic 6:6–8; Isa 1:10–17; Jer 6:16–21; 7:21–26; and cf. Pss 50, 51.

112  Greg Schmidt Goering will not accept the sacrifice (34:21). Or, if one offers a sacrifice in atonement for sin, but subsequently and habitually commits the same sin, the sacrifice becomes ineffectual (34:23; cf. 34:30–31). In contrast, in Sir 35:1–13, Ben Sira suggests that cultic practice joined with ethical behavior “enriches the altar;” “the sweet smell” of such sacrifices rises “before the Most High” (35:8). The nomistic motive for offering sacrifices is also present in this passage (35:7), but Ben Sira adds an additional reason: if you are generous in giving to God, he will be generous in giving back to you (35:13). As Wright notes, Ben Sira’s “other comments about the cult in [Sir 34:21–35:12] do not seem to spiritualize [the cult] in favor of ethics.” 24 The point of Sir 35:1–2 (as well as 35:3–5) is not, as Collins sees it, that ethics is more important than cult, but that cult and ethics are closely connected. 25 One other example should suffice to show that Ben Sira holds the sacrificial cult in high esteem. In Sir 3:12–16, the sage advocates honor of father. He provides the motivation for this ethical action as follows: Sir 3:14a b 15a b Sir 3:14a b 15a b

26‫תשכח‬

‫צדקת אב לא‬ F

27

‫ותמור חטאת היא תנטע‬ ‫ביום צרה תזכר לך‬ ‫כחם על כפור להשבית עוניך‬ Kindness to a father will not be forgotten; it is a substitute for a sin-offering and will be firmly planted. In the day of distress, it will be remembered on your account; like heat upon frost to remove your sins.

Clearly Ben Sira advocates honor of one’s father because it furthers the wellbeing of the child. By comparing honor of father to making a sin-offering, the sage does not suggest that the ethical act displaces the cultic requirement. Rather, the comparison indicates his lofty regard for the sacrifice: it is as important as doing right (ṣədāqâ) by one’s father.

 24 WRIGHT, Ben Sira as Defender of the Jerusalem Priesthood, 193. 25 Hayward says it well: “As far as ben Sira is concerned, there can be no question of a dichotomy between ritual and moral commandments” (HAYWARD, Sacrifice and World Order, 31). 26 Reading with G and MS C. MS A reads lʾ tmḥh (will not be blotted out). Where G reads the future indicative, MS C reads ʾl tškḥ, either a jussive or a negative imperative. 27 Reading with MS Amg.

Simon and the Actualization of Wisdom in the Jerusalem Temple  113

3 Simon and Wisdom in the Jerusalem Temple Thus far, I have suggested that Ben Sira associates piety (expressed through the phrase “fear of YHWH”) with Israel’s wisdom. This piety is not one-dimensional, focusing only on the ethical, as some scholars have suggested. Rather, fear of YHWH includes a cultic dimension which involves participation by the observant Jew in the sacrificial cult of the Jerusalem temple. If Ben Sira connects wisdom with Jewish piety, and one aspect of that piety pertains to cultic observance, then it should not be surprising that the sage also associates, in a special way, personified Wisdom herself with the temple. Scholars have noted the connections between the portrait of personified Wisdom in Sirach 24 and Israel’s cult, especially as practiced in the Jerusalem temple. 28 To begin with, the setting for Wisdom’s speech is “the assembly of the Most High” (24:2a). While this probably refers to the divine council (see the references to “hosts” in v 2b), the connection between the divine council and the temple is well established. 29 Moreover, Wisdom recounts that she served YHWH “in the holy tent” (ἐν σκηνῇ ἁγίᾳ), a reference to the wilderness tabernacle, 30 and later took up residence in Zion, that is, in the temple in Jerusalem (24:10). Finally, in 24:15, Wisdom compares herself to various spices used in Israel’s cult: Sir 24:15a b c d Sir 24:15a b c d

ὡς κιννάμωμον καὶ ἀσπάλαθος ἀρωμάτων καὶ ὡς σμύρνα ἐκλεκτὴδιέδωκα εὐωδίαν ὡς χαλβάνη καὶ ὄνυξ καὶ στακτὴ καὶ ὡς λιβάνου ἀτμὶς ἐν σκηνῇ Like cinnamon and sweet aspalathus and like choice myrrh I give off a sweet smell; like galbanum, onycha, and stacte, like the smoke of frankincense in the tent.

 28 For example, see PERDUE, Wisdom and Cult, 189–190; SHEPPARD, Wisdom as a Hermeneutical Construct, 21–71; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 331–338; and COLLINS, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 49–53. 29 See, e.g., Isa 6. Seitz notes that Isaiah’s call both incorporates the motif of the divine council and takes place within the temple (SEITZ, Isaiah 1–39, 54). 30 See Exod 25:9; 26:1, 6, 7, 9; 27:9, 21; 28:43; etc.

114  Greg Schmidt Goering As Gerald Sheppard has observed, these are the spices used in the Priestly source to make the anointing oil and incense for the wilderness sanctuary. 31 A comparison with LXX Exod 30:23, 34, and 36 illuminates the source for Ben Sira’s portrait of Wisdom. Exod 30:23 καὶ σὺ λαβὲ ἡδύσματα τὸ ἄνθος σμύρνης ἐκλεκτῆς πεντακοσίους σίκλους καὶ κινναμώμου εὐώδους τὸ ἥμισυ τούτου διακοσίους πεντήκοντα καὶ καλάμου εὐώδους διακοσίους πεντήκοντα Exod 30:23 Take spices: of the flower of choice myrrh five hundred shekels, of fragrant cinnamon half of this, two hundred and fifty, and of fragrant cane two hundred and fifty. Exod 30:34 . . . λαβὲ σεαυτῷ ἡδύσματα στακτήν ὄνυχα χαλβάνην ἡδυσμοῦ καὶ λίβανον διαφανῆ. . . Exod 30:34 . . . take for yourself spices: stacte, onycha, sweet galbanum, and translucent frankincense. . . Exod 30:36 . . .ἐν τῇ σκηνῇτοῦ μαρτυρίου. . . Exod 30:36 . . .in the tent of meeting . . . The similarities between Sir 24:15 and the P passages from Exodus are quite striking. In Exodus, two of the first three spices mentioned by Ben Sira— cinnamon and myrrh—are mixed with cassia and olive oil to make an anointing oil for consecrating the wilderness sanctuary, its appurtenances, and the priests (Exod 30:23–33). The last four spices—galbanum, onycha, stacte, and frankincense—constitute the ingredients of the incense used in the tent of meeting (Exod 30:34–38). Clearly Sirach 24 associates the presence and activity of wisdom with Israel’s cultic practices, especially with the Jerusalem temple. The connection between Wisdom and the Jerusalem temple cult becomes more striking when one compares the portrait of personified Wisdom in Sirach 24 with that of Simon the high priest in Sirach 50. 32 Like Wisdom, Simon is said to serve in the “tent” (ʾhl) and in “the house of the veil” (byt hprkt, 50:5), images drawn from the wilderness sanctuary and applied to the Jerusalem temple. Just as wisdom was compared to the elements of the holy incense, so too Simon is

 31 SHEPPARD, Wisdom as a Hermeneutical Construct, 57. 32 My discussion below owes a significant debt to HAYWARD, Sacrifice and World Order, 23–24. I am grateful to Richard Clifford for bringing Hayward’s article to my attention.

Simon and the Actualization of Wisdom in the Jerusalem Temple  115

said to be “like the blaze of incense at the grain offering” (wkʾš lbwnh ʿl hmnḥh, 50:8d). 33 In addition to these cultic images which connect Wisdom and Simon the high priest, Robert Hayward notes other verbal associations between the two figures in Sirach 24 and 50. For example, Ben Sira uses the same plant imagery to describe both figures. Simon is said to be “like rose blossoms in the spring time” (50:8a), 34 and Wisdom is “like rose bushes in Jericho” (24:14b). 35 Simon is said to be “like a luxuriant olive tree filled with fruit” (50:10a), 36 while Wisdom is “like a comely olive tree in the plain” (24:14c). 37 Both are compared to “a cypress tree,” or in Syriac to “an oil tree” (50:10b; 24:13b). 38 Simon and the attending Aaronide priests are compared to sprouts of cedar trees from Lebanon (50:8c; 12d), 39 and Wisdom recounts that she “grew tall like a cedar tree in Lebanon” (24:13a). Finally, G also portrays the Aaronide priests and Wisdom similarly: during the offering of sacrifices, the priests surround Simon “like trunks of palm trees” (50:12e), 40 and Wisdom says that she “grew tall like a palm tree in Ein-gedi” (24:14a). 41 These last two images of the cedar and palm trees especially evoke the Jerusalem temple. In the biblical tradition, Lebanon itself was associated with the Jerusalem temple, as a source for the cedar building materials and for the utensils sent by King Hiram of Tyre (1 Kgs 5–9). 42 Additionally, Ps 92:13–14 [Eng. 12–  33 On the minḥâ, see, e.g., Lev 2:14–15. The verse numbering for Sirach used here follows MS B, according to BEENTJES, Ben Sira in Hebrew, 89. G numbers this colon 50:9a. 34 Following G: ὡς ἄνθος ῥόδων ἐν ἡμέραις νέων. MS B is corrupt at this point: knṣ bʿnpy bymy mwʿd. Smend reconstructs the first two words as nṣny ʿnpym (branch blossoms; SMEND, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach, 482). 35 G: ὡς φυτὰ ῥόδου ἐν Ιεριχω. 36 MS B: k z yt rʿnn mlʾ grgr. 37 G: ὡς ἐλαία εὐπρεπὴς ἐν πεδίῳ. 38 G reads “like a cypress tree towering in the clouds” (ὡς κυπάρισσος ὑψουμένη ἐν νεφέλαις, 50:10b) and “like a cypress tree on the heights of Hermon” (ὡς κυπάρισσος ἐν ὄρεσιν Αερμων, 24:13b). Syr. reads “like an oil tree (ʾ ylnʾ dmšḥʾ) full of branches” (50:10b) and “like an oil tree (ʾ ylnʾ dmšḥʾ) on Senir, the mountain of snow” (24:13b). MS B 50:10b (“like an oil tree [ʿṣ šmn ] whose branches are saturated”) supports the reading of Syr., which may suggest that the Syr. reading is preferable in 24:13b as well. 39 MS B 50:12d. According to G, which employs the singular βλάστημα (shoot), Simon is the one being compared to the cedar of Lebanon. 40 G: ὡς στελέχη φοινίκων. According to MS B, the Aaronide priests “encircle [Simon] like poplars of the wadi.” 41 G: ὡς φοῖνιξ ἀνυψώθην ἐν Αιγγάδοις. 42 VERMES, Lebanon, 26–39. In the targums and rabbinic literature, “Lebanon” becomes a codeword for, among other things, the Jerusalem temple (VERMES, The Symbolical Interpreta-

116  Greg Schmidt Goering 13] compares the righteous to cedar and palm trees, and suggests that “they are planted in the house of YHWH, and flourish in the courts of our God.” 43 Moreover, as Hayward notes, in Ezekiel’s vision of the new temple, palm trees are carved onto the walls, pillars, and gates (Ezek 40:16, 22, 26; 41:18, 19, 20, 25). 44 Ben Sira uses one other verbal similarity in order to link the portraits of Simon the high priest and Wisdom. The sage describes Simon’s activity at the altar with the verb šrt (to serve, 50:14a, 19c). 45 The G tradition renders this as λειτουργῶν (to perform religious service), the same word Wisdom uses to describe her activity in the wilderness sanctuary (24:10a). 46 As Hayward suggests, “Sacrifice, it seems, is intimately bound up with Wisdom. Both of them are part of the service of God on Zion.” 47 Through the analogous portraits of Wisdom in Sirach 24 and Simon and his priestly assistants in Sirach 50—based on lists of similes, comparable actions, and verbal similarities—Ben Sira associates Wisdom with the priestly function of Simon and his assistants in the Jerusalem temple cult and concretizes Wisdom’s functions in the cultic institutions of Israel from the earliest times during the wilderness trek down to the sage’s own day. 48 Moreover, Ben Sira suggests that the temple priests, and Simon the high priest in particular, exercise wisdom as they perform the sacrificial service of the temple. 49 That the sage draws such a close connection between wisdom and the priests should not surprise, given that Ben Sira attributes to Israel’s priests responsibility for the preservation and transmission of wisdom. 50

 tion of Lebanon in the Targums, 1–12). See, e.g., y. Yoma 6.3 [43c]; and b. Yoma 39b, both commenting on Zech 11:1. 43 VERMES, Lebanon, 37. 44 HAYWARD, Sacrifice and World Order, 26. 45 Cf. also 7:30b, where the participle occurs in reference to those who render priestly service. 46 Note also the connection between wisdom and liturgical service in Sir 4:14a. The larger passage concerns personified Wisdom’s instruction of “her children” (4:11a). Ben Sira says that “those who serve [Wisdom] serve the Holy One” (m šrty qdš mšrtyh). The sage probably has in mind the priests, or lay people acting through the priests, who serve wisdom through temple worship. For use of the verb šrt in cultic contexts, see Deut 10:8; 17:12; 21:5; and Jer 33:21. 47 HAYWARD, Sacrifice and World Order, 26. Cf. SHEPPARD, Wisdom as a Hermeneutical Construct, 47. 48 See the comments of SHEPPARD, Wisdom as a Hermeneutical Construct, 59. 49 HAYWARD, Sacrifice and World Order, 23, 29. 50 See GOERING, Wisdom's Root Revealed, 103–128.

Simon and the Actualization of Wisdom in the Jerusalem Temple  117

4 Cultic Piety and Creation What, one may ask, is the larger implication of the association Ben Sira draws between Wisdom and Simon’s priestly function in the Jerusalem temple cult? A clue to the answer lies in Ben Sira’s famous correlation of Wisdom and Israel’s Torah in Sir 24:23, along with the Edenic imagery which immediately follows. For Ben Sira, Israel’s Torah served as a divine guidebook filled with ethical and ritual commandments. The sage asserts that everything Wisdom says about herself in Sir 24:3–22 also proves true regarding the Torah. Moreover, Ben Sira elaborates on the wisdom which resides in the Torah by comparing “the book of the Most High’s covenant” (24:23a) to the four branches of the river that flows from the garden of Eden in Gen 2:10–14: the Pishon, Tigris, Euphrates, and Gihon (Sir 24:25–27). 51 In the last part of the chapter, Ben Sira describes himself, the sage, as a conduit from a river which waters a “garden” (παράδεισον, 24:30), employing the same word that the Septuagint uses to refer to the garden of Eden (see LXX Gen 2:8, for example). This cumulative imagery of the four paradisiacal rivers and Ben Sira’s conduit that waters a garden evokes Ezekiel’s image of the stream which flows from the temple in order to water a lush garden (Ezek 47:1– 12). 52 Hayward rightly concludes: “It would appear, therefore, that Ben Sira has portrayed the temple as an earthly Eden which sends out the Paradise waters of Wisdom.” 53 The portrait of Simon in Sirach 50 also contains an Edenic connection. The poem begins by naming “Simon the priest, the son of Jochanan” as “the splendor of his people” (tpʾrt ʿmw, 50:1a). This phrase links the chapter about Simon back to the hymn In Praise of the Ancestors of Old, which concludes with a reference to “the splendor of Adam” (tpʾrt ʾdm), which, the sage says, surpasses the splendor of any living being (Sir 49:16b). 54 I should note that Ben Sira also alludes to Adam (ὁ πρῶτο ϛ, literally “the first one”) in Sirach 24 when he uses the four paradisiacal rivers to describe the abundance of wisdom found in the

 51 Hayward suggests that the “reference to the Jordan in verse 26 does not destroy the Paradise imagery, but ties the four Paradise rivers close to the land of Israel” (HAYWARD, Sacrifice and World Order, 26). As Skehan and Di Lella note, G’s “the Nile” (v 27a) should not be construed as a sixth river in Ben Sira’s list but rather represents a misreading of ʾôr (light) as yəʾôr (the Nile; SKEHAN/DI LELLA, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 330). 52 Hayward also makes this connection (HAYWARD, Sacrifice and World Order, 26). 53 HAYWARD, Sacrifice and World Order, 26–27. 54 SKEHAN/DI LELLA, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 545, 550. See also HAYWARD, Sacrifice and World Order, 27–28; and MARBÖCK, Henoch—Adam—der Thronwagen, 103–111.

118  Greg Schmidt Goering Torah (24:28). It would appear that, in Ben Sira’s view, Simon tends the temple (Eden) in the same way that Adam tended the garden (Eden). The identity of the ritual presided over by Simon in Sir 50:16–19 may also strengthen the insinuation of creation. Scholars traditionally have interpreted the ritual depicted in Sirach 50 as an allusion to Yom Kippur. A few have countered that the ritual over which Simon presides is the daily offering (Tamid). 55 Recently, Otto Mulder has argued that the ritual in Sirach 50 is neither Yom Kippur nor the daily offering; rather, Simon presides over the Rosh Hashanah ceremony. If Mulder is correct, then the association between the New Year and creation in early Judaism suggests another evocation of the connection between the priestly activities in the Jerusalem Temple and the creation of the world. 56 Mulder’s thesis would place the entire Hymn in Praise of the Ancestors in a thematic envelope: the Hymn follows directly Ben Sira’s Hymn to Creation in Sir 42:15–43:33 and ends with Simon’s recapitulation of creation in the execution of the Rosh Hashanah service in the Jerusalem Temple. Ben Sira’s association of the Torah’s wisdom with the operation of the temple cult, then, seems to be connected with the beginning of the world. Indeed, in Sirach 24—where the description of Wisdom is replete with references to the temple cult—Ben Sira arguably portrays Wisdom’s association with Israel as beginning in the primordium. 57 In this chapter, YHWH exercises his prerogative of election in order to link his chosen people with Wisdom in a special way. In her universal aspect, Wisdom permeates the entire world (“the earth,” “the heights of heaven,” “the abyss,” “the waves of the sea,” and “the earth,” Sir 24:3–6). Indeed, the culmination of Wisdom’s universal dimension states that she “ruled over every people and nation” (24:6b). 58 Sirach 24:8–12 then depicts how Wisdom came to dwell in Israel. Wisdom recounts that “the creator of all things” commanded her to pitch her tent “in Jacob” and to obtain her inheritance “in Israel” (24:8). The association of Wisdom with Israel results from YHWH’s election of Israel as the place where Wisdom dwells most fully on earth. And within Israel, Wisdom resides specifically in the Jerusalem temple (24:10– 11).

 55 See, for example, Ó FEARGHAIL, Sir 50,5–21: Yom Kippur or the Daily Whole-Offering?, 301–316. 56 The evidence for connections between Rosh Hashanah and creation in the Jewish tradition are circumstantial but compelling; see LEVENSON, Creation and the Persistence of Evil, 66–77. 57 Thus COLLINS, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 51. 58 G: καὶ ἐν παντὶ λαῷ καὶ ἔθνει ἐκτησάμην. Segal reconstructs wbkl ʿm wgwy mšlty (SEGAL, The Complete Book of Ben Sira, ‫)קמה‬.

Simon and the Actualization of Wisdom in the Jerusalem Temple  119

As I noted, Wisdom says that she served in the wilderness sanctuary (Sir 24:10a). This suggests, as Collins observes, “that Wisdom had settled in Israel before Israel settled in its land.” Moreover, in the order of presentation in Sirach 24, the divine choice of Israel as Wisdom’s special earthly dwelling occurs prior to the description of her creation “before the ages” (πρὸτοῦ αἰῶνος, 24:9a). Thus, Collins argues, Ben Sira “suggests that the association of wisdom with Israel is primordial.” The imagery of this passage evokes Deut 32:8–9, in which YHWH apportions the nations “according to the number of the divine beings.” 59 Presumably, while every other nation was assigned to some lesser divine being, Jacob is YHWH’s “inherited portion” (ḥebel naḥălātô, Deut 32:9). 60 The noun κληρονομία (inheritance, Sir 24:7b) and the verb κατακληρονομέω (to inherit, Sir 24:8d)—which frequently translate naḥălâ and nāḥal, respectively—suggest that Ben Sira may have this Deuteronomic passage in mind. The innovation introduced by Ben Sira, as Collins notes, is that YHWH “exercise[s] the election of Israel through Wisdom.” As this passage is constructed, the settlement of Wisdom in Israel “completes the process of creation.” 61 Admittedly, the temporal unfolding of events in Sirach 24 is not entirely clear. Thus, one might ask if any other passage in Ben Sira can confirm my interpretation of Sir 24:3–12 as an assertion of the primordial connection between Wisdom and Israel’s cultic piety. Ben Sira’s commentary in Sir 1:14–15 on the proverbial notion that “the fear of YHWH is the beginning of wisdom” suggests a long-standing relationship between Wisdom and Israel and human beings generally. Sir 1:14a (“to fear YHWH is the beginning of wisdom”) echoes Prov 9:10 nearly verbatim (cf. Prov 1:7 and Ps 111:10). 62 Τhe subsequent cola (1:14b–15b) develop what Ben Sira understands this correlation of fear of YHWH and the beginning of wisdom to mean. Ben Sira gives three answers to the question posed in 1:14a: What does it mean to say that the beginning of wisdom is the fear of YHWH? First, the sage asserts:

 59 COLLINS, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 51. On the text-critical problem in Deut 32:8, see SKEHAN, The Structure of the Song of Moses in Deuteronomy, 154–156; idem, A Fragment of the ‘Song of Moses’, 12–15; MAYES, Deuteronomy, 384–385; TOV, Textual Criticism, 269; and HEISER, Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God, 55–59. 60 See my discussion on the significance of inheritance and of Deut 32:8–9 in GOERING, Wisdom's Root Revealed, 69–102. 61 COLLINS, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 51. 62 See GOERING, Wisdom's Root Revealed, 141–142, esp. n. 35.

120  Greg Schmidt Goering Sir 1:14b Sir 1:14b

καὶ μετὰ πιστῶν ἐν μήτρᾳ συνεκτίσθη αὐτοῖς With the faithful [wisdom] is formed in the womb.

One answer to the question, Ben Sira suggests, is that wisdom accompanies the “faithful” (πιστῶν)—that is, those who fear YHWH—from the time before they are even born. In v 15, Ben Sira offers two additional answers to the question. 63 Sir 1:15a b Sir 1:15a b

μετὰ ἀνθρώπων θεμέλιον αἰῶνος ἐνόσσευσεν καὶ μετὰ τοῦ σπέρματος αὐτῶν ἐμπιστευθήσεται Among human beings she built an eternal foundation, and with their offspring she will be entrusted.

Ben Sira suggests that wisdom established herself among humanity long ago and will abide with humanity in perpetuity. Sir 24:8–12 also develops Ben Sira’s commentary on “the beginning of wisdom” (Prov 9:10). These verses elaborate on the theme of Wisdom’s creation “in primeval days.” Sirach 24:9 suggests that YHWH created Wisdom “before the ages, from the beginning.” 64 The description, then, of Wisdom dwelling in Israel and in the Jerusalem temple elaborates on Wisdom’s primeval association with “the faithful” in Sir 1:14b. Given that Ben Sira indeed views the connection between Wisdom and Israel’s piety to be primordial, let me return to the question of the larger implications of this association. The importance that Ben Sira places on Israel’s cultic piety can perhaps best be discerned by asking about the motivations he offers for participation in the rituals of the Jerusalem temple. As Hayward notes, Ben Sira sometimes motivates involvement in the sacrificial cult by appealing to the Torah directive to observe such rituals. 65 As an example, recall Sir 35:1–2: Sir 35:1 2

The one who keeps the Torah makes many offerings; the one who heeds the commandments makes an offering of well-being.

 63 The text of G at this point is admittedly problematic; see DI LELLA, Fear of the Lord as Wisdom, 116, n. 10, 123. Literally, the colon in v 15a reads: “Among human beings she nested an eternal foundation.” The mixed imagery between verb (to build a nest) and object (a foundation), however, suggests that something has gone askew in the transmission of this verse. For a possible reconstruction, see ibid., 180–183. 64 G: πρὸτοῦ αἰῶνος ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς ἔκτισέν με. 65 HAYWARD, Sacrifice and World Order, 28.

Simon and the Actualization of Wisdom in the Jerusalem Temple  121

A few verses later, Ben Sira suggests that in all cases one should offer sacrifices “on account of the commandment” (χάριν ἐντολῆς, Sir 35:4), 66 a phrase that also appears in the sage’s discussion of charity as a form of ethical piety (Sir 29:9). As Hayward points out, the sage employs this phrase nowhere else in his book. When the sage commends ethical piety, he gives multiple motivations for keeping the ethical commandments. 67 Similarly, Hayward suggests that “it seems unlikely that he regards sacrifice as desirable only because of the written commands to do it.” 68 Indeed, for Ben Sira the ongoing significance of the sacrificial cult is due, at least in part, to its association with wisdom. The commandments enjoin upon Israel a cultic piety, and these commandments themselves are part of Israel’s Torah, or divine book of instruction. And the sage correlates Torah with the special wisdom bestowed upon Israel. 69 Moreover, as von Rad has observed, Ben Sira views this Torah-Wisdom as “a self-presentation of primeval order” or as “the primeval order inherent in the whole world.” 70 In the practice of the Torah’s ritual commandments, Israel actualizes Wisdom as the primeval order of the world. As Hayward puts it, Sacrifice, duly offered by the legitimate priests in the sanctuary chosen by God, is thus to some extent an earthly reflection of that divine order which permeates the universe and on which the creation stands. 71

And Hayward notes further that, for Ben Sira, the sacrificial cult of the Jerusalem temple reflects the primeval order since, as I have observed, “the sacrificing high priest in the sanctuary robed in his vestments is analogous to Wisdom ministering in the sanctuary and to the first man who worked in the Garden of Eden.” 72 Thus, the vital significance of Israel’s cultic piety for Ben Sira lies in its

 66 Sir 32(35):7 in Ziegler’s verse numbering (ZIEGLER, ed. Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach, 287). 67 See GOERING, Wisdom's Root Revealed, 155–165. 68 HAYWARD, Sacrifice and World Order, 29. 69 GOERING, Wisdom's Root Revealed, 89–101. 70 VON RAD, Wisdom in Israel, 246. Hayward also notes this characterization by von Rad (HAYWARD, Sacrifice and World Order, 29). 71 HAYWARD, Sacrifice and World Order, 29–30. The connection between the temple and creation has deep antecedents in ancient Israel, especially in the Priestly source, as well as in the wider mythical traditions of the ANE. See BLENKINSOPP, Prophecy and Canon, 61–62; WEINFELD, Sabbath, Temple, and the Enthronement of the Lord, 501–512; and LEVENSON, The Temple and the World, 282–291. 72 HAYWARD, Sacrifice and World Order, 30. Hayward also notes that the germ for Ben Sira’s notion that the sacrificial cult reflects the primeval order lies in the Hebrew Bible itself: “Ac-

122  Greg Schmidt Goering ability to renew and sustain creation through the actualization of the Torah commandments, which the sage associates with wisdom, the primeval order of YHWH’s created world.

5 Conclusion Given the numerous biblical allusions Ben Sira uses when he describes both Wisdom and Simon, it is clear that we are not dealing with straightforward historical description. Rather, we should understand the portraits of Wisdom and Simon in the book of Sirach as kinds of idealized figures. Specifically, the sage depicts these figures in terms that echo biblical descriptions of the sacrificial cult. By describing Wisdom and Simon in terms similar to each other and in terms a reader would identify with the wilderness tabernacle and the Jerusalem temple, Ben Sira locates wisdom in his own day most closely with the priestly activities of Simon the High Priest. While it is clear that Ben Sira uses the authoritative scriptures he inherited to shape the figures of Wisdom and of Simon, there is little evidence to suggest that Ben Sira’s Simon becomes one of the authoritative figures of the Second Temple Period that shapes subsequent scriptures. Ben Sira seems to have intended that Simon and the other figures in the Praise of the Ancestors would have this effect. In the introduction to the encomium, the sage suggests about these figures that “remembrance of them will stand forever” (‫;עד עולם יעמד זכרם‬ Sir 14:13a). 73 And it is true that many of the figures he treats have a lasting impact on later authoritative traditions. Simon the Righteous has a prominent place in rabbinic literature. For example, in Pirke Avot, Simon appears in the line of figures that make up the Great Assembly, those who stand in the chain of the Oral Torah tradition that begins with Moses on Sinai (ʾAbot 1:1–2). It is impossible, however, at this state of our historical knowledge to affirm that Simon the Righteous known from rabbinic sources (as well as from Josephus, Jewish Antiquities) is one and the same as Ben Sira’s high priest Simon II. The rabbinic 72F

 cording to the Pentateuch, the pattern of the sanctuary was revealed to Moses directly from heaven (Exod. 25:9, 40). The Chronicler took up this idea, and considerably elaborated it (I Chron. 28:11–19)” (HAYWARD, Sacrifice and World Order, 31). 73 Ben Sira also notes that for some of Israel’s ancestors no memory of them endures (‫;אין לו זכר‬ Sir 44:9a), but it seems unlikely he expects this of the figures he names. On the various interpretations scholars give to the term ‫ עולם‬in Sirach, see MULDER, Simon the High Priest in Sirach 50, 370–372.

Simon and the Actualization of Wisdom in the Jerusalem Temple  123

Simon could just as easily be Simon I. 74 Hence, it appears that Ben Sira’s construction of the ideal figure Simon may not have had the lasting impact on future scriptural traditions, as the sage intended.

Bibliography ALBRIGHT, William Foxwell, A Biblical Fragment from the Maccabaean Age: The Nash Papyrus: JBL 56 (1937) 145–176. BEENTJES, Pancratius C., The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew: A Text Edition of All Extant Hebrew Manuscripts and a Synopsis of All Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts (VTSup 68), Leiden 1997. BEGG, Christopher T., The Literary Criticism of Deut 4:1–40. Contributions to a Continuing Discussion: ETL 56 (1980) 10–55. BEGG, Christopher T., The Significance of Numeruswechsel in Dt: The Pre-History of the Question: ETL 55 (1979) 116–24. BLENKINSOPP, Joseph, Prophecy and Canon: A Contribution to the Study of Jewish Origins, Notre Dame 1977. COLLINS, John J., Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age (OTL), Louisville 1997. CRENSHAW, James L., Old Testament Wisdom: An Introduction (rev. and enlarg. ed.), Louisville 1998. DI LELLA, Alexander A., Fear of the Lord as Wisdom: Ben Sira 1,11–30, in: P. C. Beentjes (ed.), The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research, Berlin 1997, 113–133. DUESBERG, Hilaire / FRANSEN, Irenee, Les scribes inspirés: Introduction aux livres sapientiaux de la Bible: Proverbs, Job, Ecclesiaste, Sagesse, Ecclesiastique, Bruges 1966. GOERING, Greg Schmidt, Wisdom's Root Revealed: Ben Sira and the Election of Israel (JSJSup 139), Leiden 2009. HASPECKER, Josef, Gottesfurcht bei Jesus Sirach: Ihre religiöse Struktur und ihre literarische und doktrinäre Bedeutung, Rome 1967. HAYWARD, C. T. Robert, Sacrifice and World Order: Some Observations on Ben Sira's Attitude to the Temple Service, in: S. W. Sykes (ed.), Sacrifice and Redemption: Durham Essays in Theology, Cambridge 1991, 22–34. HEISER, Michael S., Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God: BSac 158 (2001) 52–74. LEVENSON, Jon D., Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence, Princeton 1988. LEVENSON, Jon D., The Temple and the World: JR 64 (1984) 275–98. MARBÖCK, Johannes, Henoch—Adam—der Thronwagen: BZ 25 (1971) 103–11. MARBÖCK, Johannes, Weisheit im Wandel: Untersuchungen zur Weisheitstheologie bei Ben Sira. Mit Nachwort und Bibliographie zur Neuauflage (BZAW 272), Berlin 1999.

 74 The evidence is scant and scholars come down on different sides of the question. See, for example, the opposing views of VanderKam and Moore: VANDERKAM, Simon the Just: Simon I or Simon II?, 303–318; Moore, Simon the Righteous, 348–364. Mulder, who argues unpersuasively for Simon II, has recently surveyed the debate (MULDER, Simon the High Priest, 344–354).

124  Greg Schmidt Goering MAYES, A. D. H., Deuteronomy, Grand Rapids 1979. MINNETTE DE TILLESSE, G., Sections 'tu' et sections 'vous' dans le Deutéronome: VT 12 (1962) 29–87. MOORE, G. F., Simon the Righteous, in: G. A. Kohut (ed.), Jewish Studies in Memory of Israel Abrahams, New York 1927, 348–364. MULDER, Otto, Simon the High Priest in Sirach 50: An Exegetical Study of the Significance of Simon the High Priest as Climax to the Praise of the Fathers in Ben Sira's Concept of the History of Israel (JSJSup 78), Leiden 2003. Ó FEARGHAIL, F., Sir 50,5-21: Yom Kippur or the Daily Whole-Offering?: Biblica 59 (1978) 301–316. OLYAN, Saul M., Ben Sira's Relationship to the Priesthood: HTR 80 (1987) 261–286. PERDUE, Leo G., Wisdom and Cult: A Critical Analysis of the Views of Cult in the Wisdom Literatures of Israel and the Ancient near East (SBLDS 30), Missoula 1977. PFEIFFER, Robert Henry, History of New Testament Times, with an Introduction to the Apocrypha (1st ed.), New York 1949. SEGAL, M. H., The Complete Book of Ben Sira (in Hebrew; 2nd ed.), Jerusalem 1958. SEITZ, Christopher R., Isaiah 1–39 (IBC), Louisville 1993. SHEPPARD, Gerald T., Wisdom as a Hermeneutical Construct: A Study in the Sapientializing of the Old Testament (BZAW 151), Berlin 1980. SKEHAN, Patrick W., A Fragment of the 'Song of Moses' (Deut 32) from Qumran: BASOR 136 (1954) 12–15. SKEHAN, Patrick W., The Structure of the Song of Moses in Deuteronomy: CBQ 15 (1951) 153–163. SKEHAN, Patrick W. / DI LELLA, Alexander A., The Wisdom of Ben Sira (AB 39), Garden City 1987. SMEND, Rudolf, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach, Berlin 1906. SNAITH, J. G., Ben Sira's Supposed Love of the Liturgy: VT 25 (1975) 167–174. STADELMANN, Helge, Ben Sira als Schriftgelehrter: eine Untersuchung zum Berufsbild des vormakkabäischen Sofer unter Berücksichtigung seines Verhältnisses zu Priester-, Propheten- und Weisheitslehrertum (WUNT 2/6), Tübingen 1980. TOV, Emanuel, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (2nd ed.), Minneapolis 2001. VANDERKAM, James C., Simon the Just: Simon I or Simon II?, in: D. P. Wright et al. (eds.), Pomegranates and Gold Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom, Winona Lake 1995, 303–318. VERMES, Géza, Lebanon, in: Scripture and Tradition in Judaism. Haggadic Studies, Leiden 1961, 26–39. VERMES, Géza, The Symbolical Interpretation of Lebanon in the Targums: The Origin and Development of an Exegetical Tradition: JTS 9 (1958) 1–12. VON RAD, Gerhard, Wisdom in Israel (trans. J. D. Martin), London 1972. WEINFELD, Moshe, Sabbath, Temple, and the Enthronement of the Lord: The Problem of the 'Sitz Im Leben' of Genesis 1:1–2:3, in: Melanges bibliques et orientaux en l'honneur de M. Henri Cazelles, Kevelaer 1981, 501–512. WRIGHT, Benjamin G., III, 'Fear the Lord and Honor the Priest': Ben Sira as Defender of the Jerusalem Priesthood, in: P. C. Beentjes (ed.), The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research, Berlin 1997, 189–222. WRIGHT, Benjamin G., III, Ben Sira on the Sage as Exemplar, in: idem, Praise Israel for Wisdom and Instruction: Essays on Ben Sira and Wisdom, the Letter of Aristeas and the Septuagint (JSJSup 131), Leiden 2008, 165–182. ZIEGLER, Joseph (ed.), Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach (2nd ed.), Göttingen 1980.



Part 2: Scriptures

Samuel L. Adams

The Book of Ruth as Social Commentary in Early Judaism Abstract: This essay argues that the Ruth narrative dates from the Second Temple period and offers a counter to more exclusivist voices such as EzraNehemiah. This is not just a timeless account of loyalty, but a provocative story that provides commentary on such matters as ethnicity, acceptable marriage partners, and the vulnerability of widows in the social structure. The narrative sheds light on some of the important social debates from this period. Keywords: Ruth, Ezra-Nehemiah, Second Temple period, Biblical Law, widows, Moabites

1 Introduction There is widespread agreement that the book of Ruth is one of the more colorful and poignant stories in the Hebrew Bible, even as interpreters continue to debate implicit ideological messages in the narrative and the date for this work. 1 This memorable tale depicts the inspiring resilience and “dedication” (‫ )חסד‬of the three main characters (Naomi, Ruth, and Boaz), along with their resourcefulness. Moreover, the book reflects engagement with key legal traditions, including the rules for levirate marriage, laws concerning gleaning, and the acceptability of betrothal with presumed outsiders. When assessing these elements in the story and the overall thrust of the work, commentators are divided over the exact period of composition and any social critiques in the text. Because of this uncertainty, many readers caution against definitive conclusions or the advisability of exploring in much detail the social message(s) of Ruth. 2 1F

 1 It is a privilege to offer this essay in a volume dedicated to Ben Wright, a leading scholar in the study of Second Temple texts and their contexts. Professor Wright does groundbreaking work in textual studies, but he also pays close attention to the social settings for the material he examines. He is a generous scholar who takes an interest in the work of junior colleagues and offers critical feedback. For these and other reasons, including his ability to maintain interests and hobbies outside of the field, Ben is a helpful role model for me and other scholars. 2 For a summary of scholarly positions in this regard, see LAU, Identity and Ethics in the Book of Ruth, 12–18.

https://doi.org/10.1515/ 9783110596373-008

128  Samuel L. Adams Yet contextual inquiry into the meaning of fictional accounts can be fruitful for understanding the cultural world of ancient Israel and Second Temple Judea. Memorable stories often provide key insights into customs, cultural dividing lines, presumed opponents, and societal norms. Even if fictional and indicative of a specific perspective, the book of Ruth offers information on debated practices. Contextual inquiry is common with Second Temple works such as Esther, the Court Tales of Daniel, Tobit, and Judith. The book of Ruth does not receive as much attention in this regard, primarily because of uncertainty about the date, unclear motivations behind the story, and the tendency to see the book as a timeless account of loyalty rather than culturally specific commentary on certain social practices. The current discussion will highlight Ruth as a window into the socioeconomic and cultural dynamics of Judea during the Second Temple period. The various elements of social commentary in Ruth, coupled with other factors (e.g., the language of the text), tilt strongly in the direction of a postexilic narrative that makes courageous and assertive claims about ethnicity, acceptable marriage partners, economics, and the difficulties facing women in a patriarchal, “house of the father” system. 3 Rather than ignoring these aspects of Ruth because of doubt about the date and message, it is profitable to ask key questions about the narrative and the messages it conveys. For this is more than a memorable story about ‫חסד‬: through intricate details and social commentary, the book of Ruth resists the exclusivist perspective found in Ezra-Nehemiah and other Second Temple works. This story of innovation and heroism ends with a Moabite widow marrying an Israelite and then giving birth to the ancestor of King David. Arguments that minimize the provocative nature of this plotline are ignoring some of the more compelling and significant aspects of the book of Ruth, as subsequent analysis will seek to demonstrate.

2 Genre and Date Before proceeding with an exploration of any ideological agendas present in the Ruth narrative, it is necessary to consider the type of story we are dealing with and the date. The generic classification of Ruth is a relatively straightforward  3 For background on the dominant social structure of the ancient Near East, predicated on household networks with patriarchs at the head of hierarchical groupings, note the landmark study of SCHLOEN, The House of the Father as Fact and Symbol. See below for further discussion.

The Book of Ruth as Social Commentary in Early Judaism  129

matter. This is a short story set in the period of the judges, addressing the precarious situation of two widows and how they and their property can survive the intrinsic obstacles of a patrilineal and patrilocal society. 4 The tale includes intensive engagement with various Israelite legal traditions and how these might apply to the difficult situations that unfold in Ruth. Much of the narrative occurs through dialogue, as the protagonists consider how best to respond to the deaths of Elimelech, Mahlon, and Chilion, and what legal precedents or customs might apply to their particular situation. Like many colorful stories, the Ruth narrative addresses such timeless topics as loyalty, ingenuity, gender inequality, and ethnicity. The question then becomes when we date this story. This is a difficult issue to determine, since the book of Ruth lacks definitive historical markers. A full review of the debate is beyond the scope of the present discussion, but a few observations become necessary as we situate the work. 5 Efforts to place the story in the Solomonic era or an early period in the history of the Israelite monarchy are thoroughly unconvincing: the type of Hebrew in the narrative and the reworking of longstanding legal customs work against an earlier date. Consequently, answering this question becomes a matter of determining whether Ruth is late preexilic (e.g., the reign of Josiah), exilic, reflective of Persian period ideas and debates, or perhaps even later. In deciding between these options, engagement with antecedent legal traditions, the style of Hebrew, the similarity in genealogies between Ruth (4:18–22) and other texts (e.g., 1 Chron 2:3–15), and the placement of Ruth in the Writings category all factor into consideration. 6 One cannot determine this question on the basis of just one characteristic of the book, especially the argument for Late Biblical Hebrew or the number of Aramaisms. 7 Zevit analyzes these and other features in tentatively arguing for an early Persian period date (ca. 525–500 BCE). 8 He examines several key features of the book, including a later, more flexible application of the law concerning levirate marriage (Deut 25:5–10), a liberal understanding of the redemption/property  4 SCHIPPER, Ruth, 16–18. 5 For more detailed analysis, see LAU, Identity and Ethics in the Book of Ruth, 44–54; 145–190; SCHIPPER, Ruth, 18–22. 6 LAU, Identity and Ethics in the Book of Ruth, 45. One should also consider the placement of Ruth in the Megilloth grouping in the Hebrew Bible. This is not necessarily a late grouping based on festival observances, but could be a reflection of common themes in this five-book collection. See STONE, The Compilational History of the Megilloth. 7 HURVITZ, The Chronological Significance, 234–240. 8 ZEVIT, Dating Ruth, 574–600.

130  Samuel L. Adams laws in Leviticus 25, and a more nuanced depiction of widow inheritance rights. Zevit also considers some of the terminological elements in the text that point towards a later date (e.g., ‫ נשא‬+ ‫“[אשה‬to take as a wife”] in Ruth 1:4 as opposed to the more common ‫ לקח‬+ ‫ אשה‬in BH) and orthographic considerations such as the more frequent use of matres lectiones than what one finds in clearly preexilic works. None of these factors alone is decisive for dating the narrative, but Zevit takes into account the cumulative effect of the evidence and tentatively places the book in the Persian period. Many efforts to locate Ruth in an earlier period reflect more of a confessional agenda on the part of the commentator than the rigorous consideration of the language and contours of the story that Zevit provides. When considering this question of date, the sociocultural issues at stake in Ruth are more indicative of a Second Temple context. Not just the creative application of levirate marriage laws, but the inclusive understanding of foreigners in the text and tolerant views on acceptable marriage partners provide a startling contrast to the rigid understandings found in Ezra, Nehemiah, and Ezekiel 40–48. The characters Naomi and Boaz, along with the neighbors, welcome Moabites as full-fledged members of their community and even consider a Moabite widow to be worthy of betrothal with an influential and respected Israelite (Boaz is an ‫ איש גבור חיל‬in Ruth 2:1). The actions of Naomi and Ruth in the story indicate bravery, perhaps coupled with trickery in pursuit of survival, but they also point to a fluid context in which cultural norms were very much open to debate. Social commentary came in a variety of forms, including through short stories like Ruth, Esther, Tobit, and Judith. Even if somewhat earlier than clearly Hellenistic works, the Ruth narrative belongs in this discussion of Second Temple culture. Subsequent analysis will seek to underscore the nature of the message in Ruth and the cultural features undergirding it.

3 The ‘House of the Father’ System and the Legal Claims of the Ruth Narrative As with most settlement patterns in the ancient world, persons in Israel and Judea largely organized themselves around household networks, with a patriarch at the top of a hierarchical grouping. Numerous references to a “house of the father” system in both narrative and legal passages of the Hebrew Bible, as

The Book of Ruth as Social Commentary in Early Judaism  131

well as extracanonical texts, attest to this framework, which continued in large measure after the exile. 9 A man’s stability and in many instances his survival remained far more likely if he enjoyed secure attachment to a functioning household, with all of the attendant property rights, possibilities for inheritance, and the solidarity that came from a loyal, stable network. The situation and rights of women in this structure were more complex and varied, but women usually fared better when they had membership in a secure household and clan membership. 10 Those who lacked this type of association, particularly widows and orphans, faced many disadvantages, including the possibility of social marginalization, destitution, and even death. This core social structure is critical background for events in the Ruth narrative; any extreme measures in the story represent an effort to overcome the lack of connection to a functioning household. One cannot understand the story without taking into account this system and the dangers widows faced in the social structure (Deut 16:11– 15;14:27–29; 24:19–21; 25:5–10; Mal 3:5; Tob 1:8; Sir 35:17–19). The desperation of Naomi and Ruth stems from an acute awareness of their precarious circumstances in the house of the father system. In the first chapter, Naomi, Orpah, and Ruth lose the security of their household and face grave uncertainty. The story then describes in large measure the radical actions of the central characters in overcoming the breakdown of Elimelech’s previously functioning household. For example, Naomi’s pronouncement to Ruth just prior to the threshing floor scene with Boaz indicates the central agenda in the book: “Naomi her mother-in-law said to her, ‘My daughter, I need to seek some security for you, so that it may be well with you...’” (Ruth 3:1). The events before and after this declaration represent a concerted effort to provide the “security” or “resting place” (‫ )מנוח‬of a household for Naomi and Ruth through assertive and at times unconventional means. The Ruth narrative is a vivid depiction of widows and other individuals whose status in a house of the father structure was precarious or non-existent. One example of this tenuous status in the narrative is the endorsement of ingenuity as a necessary attribute for those lacking membership in a secure household. The cryptic description of the threshing floor scene in chapter 3

 9 BENDOR, The Social Structure of Ancient Israel examines “house of the father” terminology throughout the Hebrew Bible. 10 Women did have property rights in some instances and the ability to inherit, but the extent of their legal claims in the ancient world varied according to locality and time period, and we lack a full picture of their options. For more detail, see ADAMS, Social and Economic Life in Second Temple Judea, 41–80.

132  Samuel L. Adams leaves open the possibility that Ruth initiates a sexual encounter as an understandable step, given her identity as a Moabite widow without a secure clan/familial membership. 11 Like some of the antecedent narratives in Genesis where the characters resort to trickery in the service of survival or advancement (e.g., Lot’s daughters in Gen 19:30–38; Rebekah and Jacob tricking Isaac in Gen 27:5–27) one can interpret Ruth 3 along similar lines. 12 In this respect, the Ruth narrative offers flexible interpretations of legal traditions related to the “house of the father” system. This is not the work of an author whose main objective is rigorous adherence to the rules for levirate marriage (Deut 25:5–10) or the Jubilee Year legislation (Leviticus 25). 13 Rather, one find in the dialogues and transactions that occur an awareness of legal precedent, but with a fluid response and a message of inclusivity. The relevant laws, including the one about widows inheriting property in the absence of male heirs (Num 27:1–11), are background material for the exchanges in the story, usually with a creative application of the law in question. One relevant illustration of such flexibility in the narrative is the willingness of Boaz to “redeem” the land belonging to Elimelech/Naomi and thereby marry Ruth in the process, even though he is not Elimelech’s brother or even a particularly close relation. The “next-of-kin” (‫)גאל‬, who is presumably a closer relative to Naomi than Boaz, initially accepts but then declines his right of redemption because of concerns about his own inheritance (Ruth 4:1–4). One factor at work in this refusal seems to be his initial assumption that he would have to marry Naomi, who is past childbearing years, rather than Ruth. 14 Once the “next-of-kin” discovers that Ruth is part of the transaction, he balks. In contrast to this unnamed fellow, Boaz accepts the redeemer role, and he seeks attestation of his promise: 13F

 11 Much attention has focused on whether Ruth initiates a sexual encounter on the threshing room floor in chapter 3. The suggestive nature of the language in 3:7 leaves open this possibility, but the question is unprovable in either direction. For present purposes, the important point to note is that Ruth and Naomi felt sufficient urgency that she engaged in a risky gambit (i.e., sneaking to the threshing room floor during the harvest) in order to preserve her future and presumably Elimelech’s estate. Her Moabite ancestry and delicate place in the “house of the father” structure certainly play a role here. 12 FEWELL/GUNN, Compromising Redemption, find understandable human inclinations in the Ruth narrative, including duplicity in the service of survival. 13 LEVINE, Legal Themes in the Book of Ruth, 95–106, demonstrates awareness of antecedent legal traditions in the Ruth narrative. 14 DAVIES, Ruth IV 5 and the Duties of the gō’ēl, 233. Boaz tells the relative that Naomi’s selling her husband’s land, but he does not mention Ruth (4:2-4). The unnamed fellow first hears about Ruth after he expresses initial interest in the transaction (v. 5).

The Book of Ruth as Social Commentary in Early Judaism  133

Today you are witnesses that I have acquired from the hand of Naomi all that belonged to Elimelech and all that belonged to Chilion and Mahlon. I have also acquired Ruth the Moabite, the wife of Mahlon, to be my wife, to maintain the dead man’s name on his inheritance, in order that the name of the dead may not be cut off from his kindred and from the gate of his native place; today you are witnesses. (Ruth 4:9–10)

This transaction concerns property rights, the safeguarding of a family estate, and the public willingness of a prominent figure to take Ruth as his spouse. Here and throughout the narrative, we witness playful engagement with legal traditions, including implicit criticism of those who would apply an overly rigid interpretation of regulations at the expense of vulnerable persons. The fact that this type of social commentary can occur in somewhat veiled fashion in a narrative context does not necessarily mitigate the forcefulness of the statement. As James C. Scott has shown, “hidden transcripts” can occur in a variety of forms, and folktales allow for social commentary to occur in more secure fashion, somewhat removed from “the intimidating gaze of power.” 15 Such an interpretive move makes the most sense after the legal traditions had been established for a lengthy period and during a time in which acceptable practices were a matter of great debate. The Persian period remains the most likely context in this respect, as exclusivist groups (e.g., the parties behind Ezra-Nehemiah) fought against a more inclusive society (see below for further discussion).

4 The Protest against Exclusivism The fact that Ruth is described as a “Moabite” in Boaz’s public declaration at the end of the book is noteworthy, as the narrative makes a striking statement on the acceptability of his betrothal to a Moabite widow. By making intentional links to the Judah and Tamar story (Ruth 4:12) and connecting the offspring of this union to David (Ruth 4:17), the Ruth narrative crosses social boundaries that were very much open to dispute. The invocation of Ruth’s Moabite ancestry at several points (Ruth 1:22; 2:2, 6, 21; 4:5, 10) seems to underscore the provocation that her full acceptance would raise in certain circles. At several points in the Hebrew Bible, Moabites receive negative attention, such that reputable Israelites/Judeans are to avoid their company and in some cases refrain from marrying them (Num 25:1–5; Deut 23:3; 1 Kgs 11:1–2; 2 Kgs 3:4–27; Ezra 9:1–4; cf. the

 15 SCOTT, Domination and the Arts of Resistance, 4.

134  Samuel L. Adams Mesha stele). The repetition of the main character’s Moabite identity in the story is almost certainly not incidental. Since this is a self-contained narrative without overt social commentary, some interpreters have questioned our ability to know which of these antiMoabite perspectives, if any, the content of Ruth is intended to counter. The Ruth narrative never directly addresses, whether through dialogue or background information, the negative treatment of Moabites in other texts. Consequently, Schipper argues that “a nonnegative assessment is not necessarily an endorsement of Moab, but simply not a condemnation. A text does not necessarily bless Moab by default just because it does not curse Moab.” 16 Schipper proceeds to highlight more positive or at least neutral assessments of Moab in other biblical passages (e.g., 1 Sam 22:3–4), along with David’s marriages outside of his clan group (e.g., 2 Sam 3:3). He also points to the Ephrathite ancestry of Elimelech and Mahlon, and he argues that foreign marriage was not atypical for persons of this background who came “from Bethlehem.” In searching for the rationale behind so many citations of Ruth’s Moabite ancestry, Schipper cites a plausible literary connection between the Ruth narrative and the origins of Moab through Lot and his daughters in Genesis. 17 Since we have a complex portrait of Moab in the Hebrew Bible, he suggests that conclusions about an ideological agenda in Ruth, especially related to exogamy, are venturesome. Yet the vast majority of references to Moab and Moabites in the Hebrew Bible are negative, and we have specific texts from the Persian period that urge avoidance of this group, particularly when it comes to marriage. Claude LéviStrauss defines endogamy as “the obligation to marry within an objectively defined group,” and the content of Ezra 9–10 and Nehemiah 13 offers an insular, defensive understanding of acceptable partners. 18 The message is not an ambiguous one in these sources, which draw upon antecedent legislation in an effort to prohibit intermarriage. 19 In Ezra, Moabite women receive explicit mention among the nations as unacceptable marriage partners. Such unions repre 16 SCHIPPER, Ruth, 38. 17 SCHIPPER, Ruth, 41, notes the striking parallels between Ruth 3 and the account of Moab’s birth in Gen 19:30–38b, especially if Ruth does initiate a sexual encounter. He does not consider Ruth 3 to be a counter to the negative portrait in the Genesis passage, since the latter contains no specific rebuke of Moab. 18 LÉVI-STRAUSS, The Elementary Structures of Kinship, 45. 19 There are a number of different sources utilized by the author of Ezra 9–10, including Deuteronomy 7, 23, and Lev 18:24–30, in order to arrive at a highly restrictive position. For this type of intertextual reading that we find in Ezra see FISHBANE, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, 116–121; HAYES, Gentile Impurities and Jewish Identities, 24–26.

The Book of Ruth as Social Commentary in Early Judaism  135

sent an appalling act, because “The holy seed has mixed itself with the peoples of the land, and in this faithlessness the officials and leaders have led the way” (Ezra 9:2). Similarly, Moabite women are rebuked in Neh 13:23–27, such that the postexilic community should not replicate Solomon’s most famous treachery of marrying foreign women. Even if the historical accuracy of these passages and the displacement of foreign wives are in doubt, the concluding section to Ezra and Nehemiah 13 make cultural, economic, and theological statements and offer a restrictive understanding of marriage. The authors behind the prohibition were concerned with communal identity, including the possibility of female inheritance among outsiders, and both of these passages specifically mention Moabites as unacceptable partners. 20 The perspective in Ruth is markedly different and represents a vivid response to the more rigid understanding of marriage and foreigners during the Persian period. Even if the book of Ruth is not responding to the actual content of Ezra-Nehemiah (though it certainly could be), the narrative almost certainly represents a plaintive counter to the exclusivist perspective. Lacocque is on the mark when he suggests that those who date Ruth earlier than the Second Temple period or understate the sociocultural aspects of the book overlook the “subversive” agenda in the narrative, an agenda that includes openness to foreigners and a flexible interpretation of the Torah. 21 When reading this story, we run the risk of sanitizing and domesticating its message by characterizing the Ruth narrative as a folktale on general loyalty, rather than a more intricate statement on such cultural issues as the rights of widows, marriage partners, and attitudes towards outsiders. Other Second Temple works struggle with these questions of communal identity. With Jonah, another postexilic work that depicts foreigners (the Assyrians) in a favorable light, with the book of Judith and the Ammonite character of Achior, who shows awareness of the power of Israel’s Deity in his explanations to Holofernes (Judith 5–6), and even with Nebuchadnezzar’s actions of repentance in the Court Tales of Daniel (Dan 2:46; 3:31–33 [4:1–3], 6:26–27), many postexilic works explore the status of foreigners and their attitudes towards Judeans. 22 The book of Ruth belongs in this conversation regarding the social contours of early Judaism and the identity debates that took place during the Second Temple period.

 20 On female inheritance during this period, see ESKENAZI, Out from the Shadows, 25–43. 21 LACOCQUE, Ruth, 20–21. 22 LACOCQUE, Ruth, 24.

136  Samuel L. Adams When such arguments are advanced about Ruth (or similar narratives), accusations of circular reasoning often follow. Without unambiguous historical markers, doubts arise about our ability to place the Ruth narrative in the midst of Second Temple debates. Yet as the recent social-scientific study of Lau argues, the dynamics at play in this narrative, including the assertive actions of Boaz and Ruth, work in favor of a later setting and a fictional response to more dominant ideologies. In the story, mere survival requires initiative and creativity: “In breaking from the normal societal mold, the characters in the RN illustrate how a post-exilic reader can behave in supraconventional ways.” 23 In the social world of the Second Temple period, the supraconventional bravery of the characters could function as a paradigm for inclusivity and loyalty. Lau reasonably cites such a later context as the most likely background for the message in Ruth, when considered alongside the other evidence. He further suggests that an rural-urban divide could be at work in distinguishing between Ruth and Ezra-Nehemiah. If the latter represents the perspective of a literate elite with ties to the Persian bureaucracy, the Ruth narrative speaks to a more rural, egalitarian bias. 24 The focus on everyday village life, along with the hope of Davidic restoration, stands in contrast to the more overarching, institutional emphases of Ezra-Nehemiah. It is venturesome to associate this tension too specifically with actual factions in the society, but the inclusive vision of Ruth does seem to reflect an alternative viewpoint from what we find in Ezra-Nehemiah. Fictional accounts can be effective vehicles for social commentary (cf. Esther). In order to substantiate this type of understanding, we return to the actual story and the delicate nature of the protagonist’s situation. In chapter 1, the character of Ruth faces uncertain prospects in every direction, but decides to remain with Naomi. There is absolutely no indication in this section that Ruth receives any kind of welcome in Bethlehem, only that she is accompanying her mother-in-law. In chapter 2, the situation is even more fraught with risk. Ruth seeks to glean in the fields near male counterparts whose intentions might be hostile. Boaz warns her to stay near the other young women, and he is concerned about what will happen if she does not: “‘I have ordered the young not to assault you (‫( ”’)נגעך‬Ruth 2:9, translation mine). The LXX translator of this verse understood this statement from Boaz as a reference to potential molestation, using the verb ἅπτω (“to touch” or “grasp”). Ruth’s safety is in jeopardy throughout this scene, and she expresses sincere gratitude that Boaz would  23 LAU, Identity and Ethics in the Book of Ruth, 166–167. 24 LAU, Identity and Ethics in the Book of Ruth, 184–188.

The Book of Ruth as Social Commentary in Early Judaism  137

show kindness towards a foreigner (a Moabite) such as her (2:10–13). Even the threshing floor scene has dangerous undertones, as the narrator weaves a suspenseful thread, leaving open the question of how Boaz will respond when he sees this Moabite widow “laying at the place of his feet” (3:8). Finally, the episode with the elders in chapter 4 reveals the vulnerability of foreign widows in the social structure and the necessity of a complex transaction to secure Ruth’s future. The Ruth narrative, therefore, makes an assertive social statement that clashes with the prevailing rigidity of such sources as Ezra-Nehemiah. While these latter books engage in a midrashic exercise to make the legal traditions more restrictive, Ruth works in the other direction. The parallel content and competing visions are too similar to be mere coincidence and suggest roughly contemporaneous periods of composition. To illustrate the competing visions, we need only look at the conclusions of both works. The closing sections of Ruth (Obed’s birth in Ruth 4:13–17 and the generations of Perez in 4:18–22) accentuate the ancestral line from Naomi (and by extension Ruth) to David, whose name appears in 4:17 and 4:22. 25 By contrast, the closing chapter of Ezra highlights the need to banish those who are not part of the returning community of exiles (Ezra 10:11: “separate yourselves from the peoples of the land and from the foreign wives”). This chapter mentions priests, Levites, singers, and others who married foreign women, and the book closes on a strident note: “All these had married foreign women, and they sent them away with their children” (Ezra 10:44). The book of Ezra concludes with the forced displacement of the offspring of Moabite wives and children (among others), while Ruth highlights an inclusive understanding of marriage that culminates in David’s birth. These strikingly different conclusions focus on the same topics of acceptable marriage partners and the resulting offspring, suggesting a fierce internal debate.

 25 The emphasis on Naomi in this section points to the conclusion that her household line continues through Obed in the eyes of the narrator, even if she is not the biological mother. The larger focus in Ruth 4 is on the larger clan structure, or “house of the fathers” ( ‫)בית אבות‬. Witness the involvement of the unnamed redeemer figure and Boaz, neither of whom are immediate blood relatives to Ruth or Naomi. As SCHIPPER, Ruth, 46, explains, this larger clan structure can be defined as “a much larger transgenerational social grouping defined on the basis of real or fictive lines of descent as well as social and geographic considerations beyond simply bloodlines.” This “house of the fathers” terminology appears frequently in Ezra-Nehemiah and in Chronicles.

138  Samuel L. Adams

5 Conclusion Discussion of the social contours of early Judaism has only increased in recent decades, and the scholarship of Benjamin Wright has played a critical role in this regard. Wright has offered contextual studies of Ben Sira, the sapiential literature of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Letter of Aristeas, and his lucid expositions have enhanced our understanding of these critical works and their environs. 26 Other studies have sought to understand the agenda in such key narratives as Esther, Tobit, and Judith. Yet in these explorations, relatively little attention has focused on the Ruth narrative as a window into the cultural and economic world of early Judaism. Usually the reticence to engage in speculation about the book of Ruth has to do with uncertainty over the date and a tendency to categorize the narrative as a timeless story on loyalty and courage. While the latter conclusion is undoubtedly correct, the Ruth narrative provides clear statements on acceptable marriage partners, the vulnerability of widows in the clan-based social structure, and the need for inclusive and flexible legal practices. In all of these areas, the story appears to respond to more rigid, dominant voices, such as one finds in Ezra-Nehemiah. Efforts to minimize this tension overlook the power of a fictional account to offer social commentary and the helpfulness of mining the Ruth narrative for disagreements about acceptable cultural practice during an era of dynamic change. The book of Ruth should be an essential resource for understanding the social landscape of the Second Temple period.

Bibliography ADAMS, S., Social and Economic Life in Second Temple Judea, Louisville 2014. BENDOR, S., The Social Structure of Ancient Israel: The Institution of the Family (Beit ’ab) from the Settlement to the End of the Monarchy (JBS 7), Jerusalem 1996. DAVIES, E., Ruth IV 5 and the Duties of the gō’ēl: VT 33 (1983) 257–268. ESKENAZI, T.C., Out from the Shadows: Biblical Women in the Postexilic Era: JSOT (1992) 25–43. FEWELL, D.N. / GUNN, D.M., Compromising Redemption: Relating Characters in the Book of Ruth, Louisville 1990. FISHBANE, M., Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, Oxford 1985.

 26 WRIGHT, Praise Israel for Wisdom and Instruction is a useful collection of some of the most important essays in this regard.

The Book of Ruth as Social Commentary in Early Judaism  139

HAYES, C., Gentile Impurities and Jewish Identities: Intermarriage and Conversion from the Bible to the Talmud, Oxford 2002. HURVITZ, A., The Chronological Significance of ‘Aramaisms’ in Biblical Hebrew: IEJ 18 (1968) 234–240. LACOCQUE, A., Ruth, trans. K. C. Hanson (CC), Minneapolis 2004. LAU, P.H.W., Identity and Ethics in the Book of Ruth: A Social Identity Approach (BZAW 146), Berlin 2011. LÉVI-STRAUSS, C., The Elementary Structures of Kinship (rev. ed.), Boston 1969. LEVINE, B., Legal Themes in the Book of Ruth, in: H.B. Huffmon et al. (eds.), The Quest For the Kingdom of God: Studies in Honor of George E. Mendenhall, Winona Lake 1983, 95–106. SCHIPPER, J., Ruth: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 7D), New Haven 2016. SCHLOEN, J.D., The House of the Father as Fact and Symbol: Patrimonialism in Ugarit and the Ancient Near East (SAHL 2), Winona Lake 2001. SCOTT, J.C., Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts, New Haven 1990. STONE, T., The Compilational History of the Megilloth: Canon, Contoured Intertextuality and Meaning in the Writings (FAT 59), Tübingen 2013. WRIGHT, B., Praise Israel for Wisdom and Instruction: Essays on Ben Sira and Wisdom, the Letter of Aristeas and the Septuagint (JSJSup 131), Leiden 2008. ZEVIT, Z., Dating Ruth: Legal, Linguistic, and Historical Observations: ZAW 117 (2005) 574–600.

Ibolya Balla

Glimpses into Ben Sira’s Society With a View to the Connections between Ben Sira and Amos Abstract: The paper attempts to shed light on Ben Sira’s ambivalent view on the society in which he lived with a view to the similarities between his attitude to society and that of the prophet Amos. In many of the relevant Ben Sira passages a certain distrust may be discovered towards the wealthy or Israel’s leaders perhaps due to the fact that some of them associated with the Hellenistic rulers. Especially during the transition from Ptolemaic to Seleucid rule the status of and relation between the local rulers, and between them and their Greek overlords may have been complex, making it difficult for the individual—dependant on the upper classes—to choose allies. This atmosphere may have been the hotbed of distrust in the web of relations of the individual, at the level of friendship but even within familial bonds. Another consequence of the turbulence of the 3rd and 2nd centuries BCE was that the number of poor people did not decrease. Ben Sira has important comments about the attitude towards the marginalized, which is also a significant topic in prophetic literature. Through comparing Sir 13:15–23 with Am 5:10–13, and Sir 27:16–21 with Am 3:3–8 certain similarities between the passages’ respective concepts and vocabularies become apparent. The first two comments offer a glimpse into the ills of society, in Ben Sira from the viewpoint of the sage who has many relation-focal sayings, in Amos, from a prophet who is to appeal to Israel’s consciousness about the nature and purpose of her covenant with God, while the second two passages— using notions evident for everyone—affirm God’s sovereignty and, in the wider context of their respective works, demonstrate the conviction that the day of the Lord bringing judgment is inevitable. In different ways both Ben Sira and Amos exhibit important principles of creation theology: God is transcendent, omnipotent and omnipresent, and the guilty cannot escape his wrath. Keywords: Ben Sira, Amos, society, similarity of wisdom and prophetic literature

1 Introduction The place one holds or may hold in society and the manners one should have towards others are important themes in Ben Sira. People fall into different cate-

https://doi.org/10.1515/ 9783110596373-009

Glimpses into Ben Sira’s Society  141

gories and the sage has a lot to say about their conducts, whether they are commendable or not. Social justice for instance receives more attention in his book than in other wisdom books. The same can be said about his attitude towards the ruling class, or influential members of society who are responsible for leadership and for carrying out justice. It is also apparent that he has a cautious stance towards them. The purpose of the present paper is to contribute to the understanding of Ben Sira’s view of his society. In the overview a specific aspect will be taken into consideration: possible connections between the Book of Ben Sira and the Book of Amos. Among the latter prophets Amos shares the most vocabulary with Ben Sira. The employment of certain images is especially noteworthy in both works, even though there are differences in the purpose of the use of the relevant images. 1

2 The social background of Ben Sira The book assumes a situation in which the author, a sage, instructed young men on how to live wisely and according to the law, what manners one should have toward God. His tasks have also included the preparation of the students for important scribal or judicial positions in society, probably to function as advisors, members of courts, students of law, possibly ambassadors (Sir 4:9; 2 11:7–9; 15:5; 21:17; 38:24–39:11; 42:2) and to serve the mighty (8:8). On the one hand the sage and his addressees seem to have relative power, to be able to rescue the oppressed, for whose protection they feel responsible (4:9). 3 Their authority comes from their knowledge of wisdom and their commitment and adherence to the law of the Most High. 4 On the other hand, they seem to stand beneath and somewhat vulnerable to the wealthy and powerful. Sometimes it is clear which members of the ruling class are in the centre of attention—for instance Hellenistic rulers or local rulers of the judicial system—while at other times the comments are rather general. Horsley and Tiller note that there is a number of designations for the leaders of Ben Sira’s society and that while the sage’s students are encouraged to serve and please them and even become one  1 The present article will not treat the problem of the composition of the Book of Amos. The base of the analyses is the canonical form of the book. The English translation of the relevant passages is from the NRSV. 2 HARRINGTON, Invitation to the Apocrypha, 78; HORSLEY/TILLER, Ben Sira, esp. 80, 85. 3 HORSLEY/TILLER, Ben Sira, 80, 85–86. 4 HORSLEY/TILLER, Ben Sira, 102.

142  Ibolya Balla of them in some sayings, in others we find the opposite advice: „Do not seek from the Lord high office, or the seat of honour from the king.” (Sir 7:4; see also 7:6) 5 Such an ambivalence reflects caution towards the influential. It is telling that many of the relevant comments emphasize the difference between the status of those addressed and of the mighty: „Do not contend with the powerful, or you may fall into their hands. Do not quarrel with the rich, in case their resources outweigh yours; for gold has ruined many, and has perverted the minds of kings” (Sir 8:1–2). Sir 8:12 suggests that the rich may break the rules of society: “Do not lend to one who is stronger than you; but if you do lend anything, count it as a loss”. 6 Sir 13:2 confirms the idea that recurs in the book that one should associate with his own kind to avoid unpleasant consequences: „Do not lift a weight too heavy for you, or associate with one mightier and richer than you. How can the clay pot associate with the iron kettle? The pot will strike against it and be smashed.” Dangerous or avoidable mixtures appear in Sir 13:9–13 and in 13:15–23 which will be discussed below. The distrust exhibited in many of the passages about the wealthy or Israel’s leaders is possibly due to the fact that some of them associated with the Hellenistic rulers. While Antiochus III (222–187 BCE) permitted the Jews to live according to their ancestral laws, and—according to Josephus Ant. 12. 138–144— even contributed to the repair of Jerusalem, of the temple and to the offering of sacrifices, it did not mean that slow Hellenization did not take place even before, but especially after his times. The corruption of some members of the Tobiad family, such as Joseph—who was the general taxation officer for the Ptolemies between probably 239–217 BCE in parts of Palestine and Syria—is representative of the hardships the region had to endure during at least some periods of Hellenistic rule, even if only half of the story is true about Joseph’s actions recorded by Josephus (Ant. 12. 154–234). Concerning the social and material circumstances of Judea and Jerusalem we may note that from this time

 5 Besides the word king (�‫מל‬, βασιλεύς), the most important terms for rulers are: chief (‫שׂר‬, μεγιστάν, δυνάστης, ἡγούμενος), ruler (‫מושׁל‬, ἡγούμενος, κριτής, δυνάστης, κύριος), judge (‫שׁופט‬, κριτής), noble (‫נדיב‬, δυνάστης); in addition, we find master of the city (‫שׁלטון עיר‬, μεγιστάν), chief (‫נשׂיא‬, ἡγούμενος), officer (‫מחוקק‬, γραμματεύς), leader (‫ראשׁ‬, ἡγούμενος). Apart from „king” which may designate the Hellenistic rulers, these terms all seem to refer to local leaders; see also HORSLEY/TILLER, Ben Sira, 81–83, who note that most of the terms are used in construct form with words such as city, people and assembly and that these leaders were members of the priestly aristocracy in a temple state ruled by the high priest as well. It is also likely that while there is overlap between the function of these leaders, there is also difference in status among the members of the ruling class. 6 FRÖHLICH, Ben Szira, esp. 154.

Glimpses into Ben Sira’s Society  143

onwards more and more wealthy families settled in Jerusalem. As a result, the city grew in economic and political significance and became one of the financial centres. It seems that the Tobiads and their aristocratic circles became advocates of Hellenistic influence even after the transition from Ptolemaic to Seleucid rule. This and the increase of the number of wealthy people in Jerusalem may have been one of the concerns of Ben Sira. If he wrote around 180 BCE, then the burden of the taxes imposed by the Romans on the Seleucids at the peace treaty of Apamea (188 BCE) has been also felt by the Jews. 7 While not all members of the Onias family can be taken as fervent opponents of Hellenistic culture, Simon, the High Priest is praised for upholding the traditions of the Jews and their right to live according to Mosaic Law. 8 We may briefly touch here on the issue that divides scholars: the author’s attitude towards Hellenism. Collins argues that Sirach’s “familiarity with, and acceptance of, Hellenistic banquets shows that he was no zealous opponent of Hellenistic culture as such”. 9 As Gregory points out, For Ben Sira, if a Hellenistic idea or social convention can be accommodated to ‘the fear of the Lord’ and the keeping of Torah, then he is not overly reluctant to adopt it. These ideals form the basic grid through which Ben Sira evaluates Hellenism and provide the essential content of how he defines wisdom. Nevertheless, one must keep in mind that Ben Sira himself associated with the intellectual elite of his day, and his life was financially subsidized by the wealthy. 10

This may explain the ambivalence that at times characterizes the author’s comments on the attitude toward the influential. However, when it comes to exploitation of the marginalized and the “attacks on the threatened faith of the fathers” 11 it is clear on which side Ben Sira stands. Taking into account all the aspects of the changes slowly taking place even from the 3rd century BCE, we may augment our image of the society in which the sage lived. Although not to the same extent, all five Syrian wars during this century have probably taken their toll on the life of the residents in Judea both economically and socially.  7 JAGERSMA, Izráel története, 24–25, 30; COLLINS, Jewish Wisdom, 28–29; HENGEL, Judaism and Hellenism, 27–28. 8 See Sir 50:1–21; note also the praise of Aaron in Sir 45:6–22 and that of Phinehas in 45:23–26. 9 COLLINS, Jewish Wisdom, 33. 10 Cf. GREGORY, Like an Everlasting Signet Ring, 13. In his analysis of passages that suggest that Ben Sira was aware of the dangers Hellenism represented for Jewish society and economy (Sir 8:1–2.18–19; 11:29–31.34; 11:12.16; 29:22–28 and 36:1–22), REITERER, Der Fremde bei Ben Sira, 64–85, concludes that Ben Sira’s answer for these threats was not aggression, but education. 11 HENGEL, Judaism and Hellenism, 158.

144  Ibolya Balla The transition from Ptolemaic to Seleucid rule has confirmed the notion that for Judea political independence is out of reach. While some aspects in the administration of the territories within the Hellenistic Empires remained consistent, some have changed and resulted in a complicated picture regarding the status and relation between the local rulers, and between them and their Greek overlords. In such circumstances, especially during transitions between rulers it is not always easy to choose one’s allegiances and alliances. 12 The hesitance of Onias III to accept Seleucid influence and the ruthless actions of the Tobiad Joseph to secure his position with the powerful of the day show very well how dangerous the situation could have been for those who were close to, but somewhat beneath and dependant on the leaders. This atmosphere was the hotbed of distrust in the web of relations of the individual, at the level of friendship but even within familial bonds. Another consequence of the turbulence of the 3rd and 2nd centuries was that even though there appeared a wealthy class, the number of poor people did not decrease. While the wisdom writers did not call for substantial changes of the status quo in society, nor tried to convince the rich to change their ways as most of the latter prophets did, they dedicate a number of sayings to social justice, almsgiving, kindness, and being righteous in general towards the weak and the oppressed. This is especially true of Ben Sira. While Proverbs, which served—to a certain extent—as a model for him, was also concerned with the cause of the needy (14:21; 15:25; 19:17; 22:9; 28:27), Ben Sira says more about the attitude toward the marginalized, and those whom one should respect, one’s parents. While the latter appear in Proverbs (e.g. 20:20; 23:22), Ben Sira dedicates a lengthy passage to the topic (3:1–16), in addition to short sayings (e.g. Sir 7:27–28). Since the immediate family is the base of society, solidarity and charity between children and parents are not only one’s duty ordered by God but also essential in holding together the structure of society (Mal 3:24). Friendship, another important element of one’s web of relations also receives great attention in the Book of Ben Sira. Apart from the commandments of the Mosaic Law regarding conduct toward fellow neighbour—which are based on the notion that, while ultimately only God can give justice and deliverance to the weak as their only true protector (cf. Ps 82:3–4), 13 the same duty applies to  12 JAGERSMA, Izráel története, 14–36. 13 A similar role is attributed to him in Ps 68:6 (= 5 in the NRSV) as father to the fatherless and defender of widows. This role is transferred to humans in Sir 4:10. See also Sir 7:32.36; 29:1–13; 34:24–27; 35:17–18[= 32(35):17–19 in GI]). Sir 35:14–26 suggests that God is just and righteous and will respond to those who cry out for help (Sir 35:14–26). In 35:14–22a it is the individuals who are oppressed, while in 35:22b–26 it is rather the nation, God’s chosen people, whom he will save. Many consider Sir 36:1–22, the passage following Sir 35:14–26, to be a late addition to

Glimpses into Ben Sira’s Society  145

humans—the changes occurring in Jewish society in the Hellenistic context are also behind the comments of the sage on the right conduct in human relations.

3 Ben Sira and Amos The question of the relationship of Ben Sira and Amos is related to the question of wisdom literature and Amos, and to the even greater picture of the connection between wisdom and prophetic literature. It is beyond the scope of the present paper to deal with general questions such as these, or with the question of dependence between works—both wisdom and prophetic—which exhibit wisdom elements. Instead of trying to evaluate or summarize the research on possible wisdom influence on Amos, we aim only to emphasize some similarities between Ben Sira and Amos as part of an intertextual inquiry. 14

3.1 Similarities between Sir 13:15–23 and Am 5:10–13 Corley in his monograph on friendship in the Book of Ben Sira notes that Sir 13:17–23 shares seven words with Am 5:10–13. The latter is part of a passage criticizing Israel for social injustices (5:7.10–17, divided by a redactor’s insertion of a doxology in vv. 8-9). Sir 13:17–23 is part of a section dealing with friendship in 14:15–23. The shared words are as follows: “righteous/devout” (Sir 13:17; Am 5:12), “pauper/poor” (Sir 13:19.21.22.23; Am 5:11), the root “abhor” (Sir 13:20; Am

 the book. Gregory convincingly argues that the transition from the plight of the poor to the plight of Israel under foreign rule in Sir 35:14–16 suggests that Sirach 36 with its prayer for deliverance from oppression is an integral part of the book. GREGORY, The Relationship, 311–27. 14 Regarding the question about the relationship of wisdom and Amos Kessler emphasizes the social changes taking place in 8th century Israel and entailing various reactions. The first of these reactions is that the prophets of the 8th century BCE have criticised and condemned social injustices. Later, their words were fixed in the tradition, which—in Kessler’s view—is connected with the formation of legal codes. Taking this into account the question regarding the relation of wisdom and prophetic literature does not always concern the direction of dependence but the influence of the social background of the respective authors. Similar social circumstances may result in similar concerns, even if they are expressed in different ways. KESSLER, Amos und die Weisheit, esp. 54–55.

146  Ibolya Balla 5:10), “needy” (Sir 13:20; Am 5:12), “many” (Sir 13:22; Am 5:12), “insightful/prudent” (Sir 13:22; Am 5:13), “speaks” (Sir 13:22.23; Am 5:10). 15 Sir 13:15–23: 15 Every creature loves its like, and every person the neighbor. 16 All living beings associate with their own kind, and people stick close to those like themselves. 17 What does a wolf have in common with a lamb? No more has a sinner with the devout. 18 What peace is there between a hyena and a dog? And what peace between the rich and the poor? 19 Wild asses in the wilderness are the prey of lions; likewise the poor are feeding grounds for the rich. 20 Humility is an abomination to the proud; likewise the poor are an abomination to the rich. 21 When the rich person totters, he is supported by friends, but when the humble falls, he is pushed away even by friends. 22 If the rich person slips, many come to the rescue; he speaks unseemly words, but they justify him. If the humble person slips, they even criticize him; he talks sense, but is not given a hearing. 23 The rich person speaks and all are silent; they extol to the clouds what he says. The poor person speaks and they say, “Who is this fellow?” And should he stumble, they even push him down. Am 5:10–13 They hate the one who reproves in the gate, and they abhor the one who speaks the truth. 11 Therefore because you trample on the poor and take from them levies of grain, you have built houses of hewn stone, but you shall not live in them; you have planted pleasant vineyards, but you shall not drink their wine. 12 For I know how many are your transgressions, and how great are your sins-- you who afflict the righteous, who take a bribe, and push aside the needy in the gate. 13 Therefore the prudent will keep silent in such a time; for it is an evil time. 10

Sir 13:15–23 has a teaching on friendship in the context of teaching on the rich and poor. Its overall message is that it is impossible to form friendship between the wealthy and the pauper. The passage can be divided into two stanzas; the first declares that every creature associates with its own kind (13:15–20), the second states that the rich and poor are treated unequally (13:21–23). To underline the impossibility of reconciliation between rich and poor, the author em-

 15 See also Mic 7:3: “Their hands are skilled to do evil; the official and the judge ask for a bribe, and the powerful dictate what they desire; thus they pervert justice.”

Glimpses into Ben Sira’s Society  147

ploys a number of literary devices. 16 We find animal imagery in vv. 17–19. Within it stand various rhetorical questions to which the answer can only be “no.” Even though the section in Amos (5:10–13) directly addresses those condemned for their actions, and the author does not use rhetorical questions, 17 in terms of content the connection with Sir 13:15–23 is manifold: divisions such as righteous/devout–transgressors, and rich–poor are present; the righteous or the poor and their conduct are the subject of abhorrence in the eyes of the transgressors and the rich; there is no place for the prudent—by implication probably also God-fearing—to speak: they are either not heard (Ben Sira) or choose to keep silent (Amos). In Sir 13:17 the image of lamb may refer to the concept of shepherds as Israel’s rulers whom the prophets frequently accuse of apostasy. Instead of looking after and caring for their flock they turn their enemy by devouring them. 18 The expression “lamb” in Sir 13:17 may have such an underlying idea and can perhaps be understood as a warning against associating with the Tobiads. 19 While direct reference to shepherds in Am 5:10–13 cannot be found, and not exclusively the leaders are responsible for perverting justice, they are the target of most of the prophet’s criticism. In both passages we have a glimpse into the ills of society, in Ben Sira from the viewpoint of the sage who has many relation-focal sayings, in Amos, from a prophet who is to appeal to Israel’s consciousness about the nature and purpose of her true call that she greatly misunderstood.

3.2 Similarities between Sir 27:16–21 and Am 3:3–8 The section in Ben Sira concludes that friendship cannot be repaired if one’s confidence is betrayed. This is expressed through the repetition of the expression “to reveal confidence” and through the use of hunting imagery. While the  16 See the advice in the close context on the danger of mixing with members of other classes or status: “When an influential person invites you, be reserved, and he will invite you more insistently. Do not be forward, or you may be rebuffed; do not stand aloof, or you will be forgotten. Do not try to treat him as an equal, or trust his lengthy conversations; for he will test you by prolonged talk, and while he smiles he will be examining you. Cruel are those who do not keep your secrets; they will not spare you harm or imprisonment. Be on your guard and very careful, for you are walking about with your own downfall” (Sir 13:9–13). 17 Rhetorical questions appear in Am 3:3–8, a passage treated below. 18 For the image of sheep and shepherd see: 2Sam 24:17; Jer 23:1-3; 50:17; Ezek 34:2-6; Zech 11:17; Ps 74:1; 1Chr 21:17 (sheep); 2Sam 7:7; Jer 23:1–4; Ezek 34:2–10; Mic 5:4; Zech 11:16–17; 1Chr 17:6 (shepherd). 19 CORLEY, Ben Sira’s Teaching, 138.

148  Ibolya Balla conclusion of the passage in Am 3:3–8 concerns prophets and their calls, these didactic poems share the following ideas and vocabulary: “reveal/betray” (Sir 27:16.17.21; Am 3:7), “confidence/secret” (Sir 27:16.17.21; Am 3:7), “snare/trap” (Sir 27:20; Am 5:5); in addition, they use different Hebrew terms for “bird” (Sir 27:19; Am 3:5), and the image of “catching” appears in Sir 27:19. Sir 27:16–21 16 Whoever betrays secrets destroys confidence, and will never find a congenial friend. 17 Love your friend and keep faith with him; but if you betray his secrets, do not follow after him. 18 For as a person destroys his enemy, so you have destroyed the friendship of your neighbor. 19 And as you allow a bird to escape from your hand, so you have let your neighbor go, and will not catch him again. 20 Do not go after him, for he is too far off, and has escaped like a gazelle from a snare. 21 For a wound may be bandaged, and there is reconciliation after abuse, but whoever has betrayed secrets is without hope. Am 3:3–8 Do two walk together unless they have made an appointment? 4 Does a lion roar in the forest, when it has no prey? Does a young lion cry out from its den, if it has caught nothing? 5 Does a bird fall into a snare on the earth, when there is no trap for it? Does a snare spring up from the ground, when it has taken nothing? 6 Is a trumpet blown in a city, and the people are not afraid? Does disaster befall a city, unless the LORD has done it? 7 Surely the Lord GOD does nothing, without revealing his secret to his servants the prophets. 8 The lion has roared; who will not fear? The Lord GOD has spoken; who can but prophesy? 3

These sections are similar in that they both use notions that are evident for everyone, and behind which is the observation of the natural world, typical of wisdom literature. The animal imagery serves the purpose of confirming that certain events cannot take place without a cause, and that all actions have consequences. 20 While in both works there are admonitions to sustain and value human-human (Ben Sira) or nation-God (Amos) relationship, these sections describe a situation where the damage seems beyond repair due to accumulated sin. In Ben Sira, serious treachery or disloyalty can be beyond human remedy, especially at times when trustworthy friends are difficult to find. In Amos, God cannot pass by all the transgressions of Israel; punishment is inevitable, about  20 Note that Sir 13:19 and Am 3:4 have “lion.”

Glimpses into Ben Sira’s Society  149

which the prophet, who is called by God cannot remain silent. 21 Even though mainly the human side of transgression, such as betraying friends is described in Sir 27:16–21, from the wider context of the passage it is apparent that no sin of the tongue will evade retribution. A long list of such sins is offered in chapter 28, which confirms the teaching of the sage that the Lord keeps an account of the deeds of humans. In different ways, both Ben Sira and Amos affirm God’s sovereignty; in the wider context of their respective works they demonstrate the conviction that the day of the Lord bringing judgment is inevitable, and God has the power to carry out the judgment. This is underlined by the use of the tenets of creation theology: God is transcendent, omnipotent and omnipresent, and the guilty cannot escape his wrath. 22

4 Conclusion Even though the circumstances are different in the age and society of Ben Sira and Amos, both employ literary devices to draw attention to the illnesses of society brought on by important changes, connected with national and international upheavals. These changes have overlapping elements: emerging affluence enjoyed only by some at the cost of the exploitation of others, leading to indifference to Mosaic Law and the duties towards the marginalized; 23 such indifference would naturally lead to distrust between the different strata of society, and even distrust within one’s most intimate relationships; this is complemented in Ben Sira’s age by the growing foreign—Hellenistic—influence which divided the Jews. The images Ben Sira and Amos use are similar but are employed for different purposes. This purpose, however, is very well justified by the circumstances in which they lived and about which they wanted to convey something to their respective audiences. In Ben Sira, the meaning of the images—such as the lamb, lion, prey etc. —is clear enough but is not a direct attack on the classes upon which his livelihood depends. For Amos, the use of

 21 Note the animal imagery in the description of the punishment in Am 3:12. It must also be noted that the idea “to reveal” is used differently in Sir 27:16–21 and Am 3:3–8; in Ben Sira it is connected with losing confidence through betrayal, in Amos, to taking one into one’s confidence. 22 See also BERRY, An Introduction. 23 This seems confirmed in Amos by the fact that the redactors joined Am 3:3–8 with one of the key oracles in the book (Am 3:1–2), the main theological teaching of which is that Israel has forgotten the essence, significance and purpose of her election.

150  Ibolya Balla images—such as lion, bird, trap etc.—is also an excellent literary device to capture the attention of the audience which needs to realize that acts always have consequences. For these authors and for all who ever wanted to make a point about a certain issue of importance, the various literary devices were also useful to make the content of the comments easy to memorize and to remember.

Bibliography BARTON, John, Amos’ Oracles Against the Nations, Cambridge 1980. BERRY, Donald K., An Introduction to Wisdom and Poetry of the Old Testament, Nashville 1999. COLLINS, John J., Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, Louisville 1997. CORLEY, Jeremy, Ben Sira’s Teaching on Friendship, Providence 2002. FRÖHLICH, Ida, Ben Szira társadalma, in: S. Scheiber (ed.), MIOK Évkönyv, Budapest 1978, 152– 158. GREGORY, Bradley C., Like an Everlasting Signet Ring: Generosity in the Book of Sirach, Berlin 2010. GREGORY, Bradley C., The Relationship between the Poor in Judea and Israel under Foreign Rule: Sirach 35:14–26 among Second Temple Prayers and Hymns: JSJ 42 (2011) 311–327. HENGEL, Martin, Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine During the Early Hellenistic Period, Philadelphia 1974. HARRINGTON, Daniel J., Invitation to the Apocrypha, Grand Rapids 1999. HORSLEY, Richard A. / TILLER, Patrick, Ben Sira and the Sociology of the Second Temple, in: P.R. Davies and J.M. Halligan (eds.), Second Temple Studies III. Studies in Politics, Class, and Material Culture, London 2002, 74–107. JAGERSMA, Henk, Izráel története 2: Nagy Sándortól Bar Kochbáig, Budapest 1991. KESSLER, Rainer, Amos und die Weisheit, in: V. Kókai Nagy and L.S. Egeresi (eds.), Propheten der Epochen: Festschrift für István Karasszon zum 60. Geburtstag / Prophets during the Epochs: Studies in Honour of István Karasszon for his 60th Birthday, Münster 2015, 51–57. REITERER, Friedrich V., Der Fremde bei Ben Sira. Die Spannungen zwischen der spätalttestamentlichen und hellenistischen Weltauffassung, in: G.G. Xeravits and J. Dušek (eds.), The Stranger in Ancient and Mediaeval Jewish Tradition, Berlin 2010, 64–85.

Bradley C. Gregory

Exemplars of Humility and the Discourse of Authority in Second Temple Judaism A Comparison of Sirach and the Community Rule 1 Abstract: While pride and humility were important moral topics in Second Temple Judaism, Sirach and 1QS both appeal to humility as a social virtue which is embedded within and reinforces their own claims of authority over against rival Jewish groups. In their respective discourses, however, they ground humility in different exemplars and seek to construct different kinds of authority structures in relation to prior authoritative traditions. Keywords: pride, arrogance, humility, authority, Ben Sira, Qumran

1 Introduction In light of their historical experiences and Scriptural heritage (e.g. Zeph 2:3; Prov 15:33), many Jews during the Second Temple period prized humility and condemned arrogance (e.g. Pr Azar 16, 65; 1 Enoch 5:8; Arist. 263; Jos. Asen. 21:21; T. Judah 18:3; T. Dan 6:9). 2 In particular, many Jewish condemnations of pride were directed at unjust rulers and used stylized descriptions (cf. Isa 14; Ezek 28) which placed these rulers in continuity with prior tyrants and in opposition to God. Examples include Sennacherib (2 Kgs 19:22; Isa 37:23; Sir 48:18; 3 Macc 6:5; cf. Isa 10:12), Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 3:15; cf. Isa 14:4; 36:20; Jer 50:2932), Alexander the Great (1 Macc 1:3), Antiochus IV (Dan 7:8-11; 8:11; 1 Macc 1:20-24; 2 Macc 9:1-8 [cf. Isa 14:11-21 LXX]), and Agrippa (Josephus Ant. 19.8.2

 1 I am pleased to offer this contribution in honor of Benjamin Wright whose scholarship and friendship I appreciate and admire. The themes of authority, exemplarity, and social location in early Judaism as well as the literature of Sirach and the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are the subjects of this essay, are topics to which he has made particularly important, illuminating contributions. 2 MARKL, ‫ ָענָה‬II ‘ānāh, 167–168. In the ancient world pride and humility were often understood as primarily behavioral, though by the Hellenistic period they could equally characterize attitudes as well. See CAIRNS, Hybris, 1–32. Both dimensions can be seen in Second Temple Jewish literature.

https://doi.org/10.1515/ 9783110596373-010

152  Bradley C. Gregory [cf. 2 Macc 9:1-8]); also perhaps Nero in Sib. Or. 5:228-237. The use of exemplars for humility was less common, though there was a natural Scriptural precedent for the use of Moses as a model of humility in Num 12:3. Interestingly, while Philo understood humility as an important feature of Mosaic teaching he did not appeal to Num 12:3 or to Moses as an exemplar of humility in his lengthy discussion in On the Virtues (161-174). In general, as with pride, humility was typically viewed as in some way relating to God, especially for the latter in the sense of willing submission and obedience. 3 Yet, it was also possible for writers in the Second Temple period to employ the rhetoric of humility for the reinforcement of (their own) claims to legitimate authority precisely by linking social and religious dimensions of humility. The two works which best exemplify this strategy are Sirach and the Community Rule (hereafter “S”). 4 A comparison between these two works shows that while their authors occupied different social locations, their appeals to humility as having interconnected social and religious dimensions show similarities of approach and aim to accomplish analogous social results.

2 Humility and Authority in Sirach For Ben Sira, a scribe and sage who worked in the early part of the second century BCE as part of the retainer class in Jerusalem, the character issues of pride and humility played an important role in his instruction to his students, especially in two passages: Sir 9:17-11:6 and 3:17-29. 5 The most extensive discussion of the topic occurs in Sir 9:17-11:6, which is a kind of instructional diptych in which the folly of power and pride in 9:17-10:18 functions as a foil for the wisdom of humility and keeping the commandments in 10:19-11:6. 6 In the first “panel” Ben Sira notes the frequent connection between pride and power and then focuses on the sin of pride in 10:6-18 in order to highlight two essential convictions. First, pride is inconsistent with the true nature of humans who are by nature “dust and ashes”, i.e. frail and transient (10:8-11; cf. 40:3; Gen 18:27;  3 On the nature of humility and its presence in Second Temple Judaism see PARDUE, Mind of Christ, 31–35. 4 Noted by PARDUE, Mind of Christ, 35; similarly, WERNBERG-MØLLER, The Manual of Discipline, 57. 5 Ben Sira’s social location among the retainer class has been especially well discussed in many places by Benjamin Wright, e.g., WRIGHT, Fear the Lord and Honor the Priest. 6 HASPECKER, Gottesfurcht bei Jesus Sirach, 139.

Exemplars of Humility and the Discourse of Authority in Second Temple Judaism  153

Job 30:19; 42:6). Thus, for humans to behave proudly is a failure to understand who they really are and to live in this false viewpoint (similarly, Philo, On the Virtues, 172-74). Second, pride and sin are closely correlated because both are predicated on a person’s failure to perceive the real nature of his own existence as a creature subject to the sovereign God of Israel (10:4-5, 12-13). The toxic nature of pride leads to the proliferation of other sins and is the reason God punishes it so swiftly and severely (10:14-17). The final verse of the first panel of the diptych again claims that pride is utterly inconsistent with humanity’s true nature (10:18). In the second panel, Sir 10:19-11:6, Ben Sira correlates keeping the commandments with true honor (10:19-25) and notes that true honor comes through humility (10:26-31) which implicitly suggests that keeping the commandments and humility are inseparable. Thus, in 9:17-11:6 Ben Sira correlates pride and humility with his anthropology while also introducing an aspect of epistemology. In the other major passage on pride and humility, Sir 3:17-29, Ben Sira focuses more explicitly on the relationship of epistemology and humility while also implicitly introducing the importance of legitimate authority. At the center of this passage stand vv. 21-24. In these verses Ben Sira warns his students against intellectual pursuits that he characterizes as “too marvelous” (‫)פלאות‬, “concealed” (‫)מכוסה‬, “hidden” (‫)נסתרות‬, and “beyond you” (‫)יותר ממך‬. The target of this critique has been the subject of debate. While some interpreters have identified them as Greek philosophical speculations, many recent scholars have argued that Ben Sira has in mind Jewish apocalyptic views. The basis for this latter interpretation is that “marvelous things” typically refers to creation or God’s acts in history (e.g. 11:4; 43:25) and “hidden things” is a term that refers to God’s revelation of future events in 42:19 and 48:25. In contrast, apocalyptic works such as the Astronomical Book, the Book of Watchers, and Aramaic Levi as well as wisdom texts with apocalyptic features such as 4QInstruction (e.g. 4Q417 1 i 10-12) and 1QMysteries (e.g. 1Q27 1 i 3-5) are primarily focused on acquiring insight through revelation into eschatology and the secrets of the created order. 7 Of course, the non-specific nature of Ben Sira’s rhetoric allows his discussion of the general problem of epistemology to be more widely applicable and he surely would have viewed the application of the lesson, mutatis mutandis, to some strands of Greek thought as appropriate. 8 6F

7F

 7 See especially MARBÖCK, Jesus Sirach 1-23, 81–82; PROCKTER, Torah as a Fence, 247–248; and WRIGHT, Fear the Lord and Honor the Priest, 211–212. 8 So CORLEY, Wisdom versus Apocalyptic and Science, 275; cf. VOITILA, Is Ben Sira Opposing Apocalyptic Teaching, 234–248.

154  Bradley C. Gregory Over against these apocalyptic claims to possess secret revelation, Ben Sira commends what has been “authorized” (‫)הורשית‬, which he notes is “more than enough” for his students. Interpreters generally agree that this term refers to the legitimate revelation found in the Mosaic Torah because the contrast in v. 22 appears to be an appropriation of Deut 29:29 in which the hidden things belong to God but the revealed things to Israel. As such, for Ben Sira the revelation of the Torah is legitimate knowledge while certain knowledge of the future or the created order is appropriate only for God. If this is so, however, Ben Sira appears to be conceding in vv. 21-23 that the knowledge these opponents claim may be true knowledge since it is identified as something marvelous that God has chosen to keep concealed. Thus, his attack is not so much on the content of what these other groups claim to know but upon the legitimacy of searching for it and acquiring it. However, the use of “schemes” and “evil imaginings” in v. 24 also suggests that some of the knowledge claimed by these groups is judged by Ben Sira to be actually false and the product of their own mental projections. By blending these two categories, Ben Sira may have been implying that one could never really know whether some proposed knowledge that fell outside the authorized tradition was concealed knowledge or simply one’s own imaginings (note the similar approach to dreams in 34:1-8). However, precisely here a significant problem arises because both Ben Sira and his apocalyptic opponents claim to ground their teachings in the observation of the created order and the contemplation of sacred texts (note, for example, the approach to Jeremiah in Dan 9:2, 22-24, which was written shortly after Sirach), though the latter often thoroughly subordinated these sources to the primacy of (new) revelation. 9 Ben Sira himself concedes that only through the acquisition of wisdom can a person gain insight into the created order (4:17-18; 43:32-33) or a true understanding of sacred texts (38:34-39:11). Thus, in such an intra-Jewish rivalry each group must construct and defend epistemological boundaries between what is generally knowable, what is knowable only by those with insight, and what cannot be known by anyone. For example, the sectarian movement of the Dead Sea Scrolls employed the distinction between hidden things and revealed things in Deut 29:29 to demarcate the knowledge of the law possessed by the sect from that of the rest of Israel (CD 3,14; 1QS 3:134:26). In contrast, Ben Sira views the Torah as universally knowable because it was made available in creation (16:24-17:14) and is accessible in written form (24:23) but suggests that a greater apprehension of its profundity is restricted to

 9 See GOFF, 4QInstruction, 171.

Exemplars of Humility and the Discourse of Authority in Second Temple Judaism  155

those who are properly trained in wisdom. 10 This explains why Ben Sira envisions his own role as akin to prophecy (24:32-34) and dependent on divine inspiration (39:6). However, the rhetoric of 3:21-24 itself suggests that the universal availability of the law and the principles of the created order did not guarantee full comprehension of these sources of understanding. Further, while Ben Sira alerts his students to the reality of epistemological limits of inquiry he does not, importantly, actually specify where they lie. And given that the scope and meaning of the authorized tradition was precisely what was in dispute, his instruction carries with it an implicit claim for his own authority to interpret the tradition and to know the boundaries of what is legitimately knowable. Or to put it another way, while some apocalyptic visionaries privilege their own status by offering revelation into secret knowledge, Ben Sira privileges his own status by offering his students a true understanding of the limits of legitimate knowledge. By following his instruction, his students are offered both true and appropriate knowledge (3:22) as well as the benefit of avoiding dangerous intellectual pursuits (3:24). Importantly, while privileging his own authoritative status to navigate the landscape of wisdom, Ben Sira also interprets these rival approaches to epistemology through a moral framework. This is clear from his contextualization of 3:21-24 in the larger passage of 3:17-29. These surrounding verses are connected through the correlation of humility with wisdom and the favor of God and of pride with stubbornness and foolishness, thereby creating a parallel between humility in the context of social relationships and the acceptance of the epistemological limits placed on humanity. Both operate by the same paradoxical logic. According to 3:17-20, the path to acceptance and recognition by both humans and God consists in living one’s life in humility. Unlike humans, God is more receptive to the humble than to the great since humility derives from a true grasp of one’s proper place before both God and people. Arrogance, on the other hand, arises from a failure to see oneself and the world as they truly are (cf. 9:17-11:6). In fact, Ben Sira’s statement that the stubborn, arrogant person “adds sin upon sin” (3:27-28) accords with his idea in 10:12-13 that pride leads to the proliferation of corruption. Thus, by refusing to pursue illicit knowledge and contenting oneself with what is authorized, true growth in wisdom occurs whereas the quest for greater wisdom than is appropriate leads astray. Crucially, while both Ben Sira and his rivals believe they perceive reality (or even true, hidden reality) correctly, the telltale indication of a correct epistemology is  10 BERG, Ben Sira, 156–157.

156  Bradley C. Gregory its correlation with the character quality of humility. This is so because for Ben Sira pride and humility go to the very heart of the sapiential understanding of humanity’s place in the world, as is clear from Ben Sira’s aligning of humility with wisdom and fear of the Lord in 1:17 and 2:17 (also cf. 15:8; 16:8). Further, it is no coincidence that in the “Praise of the Ancestors” Ben Sira presents Moses, the one who uniquely encountered the presence of God and was the vehicle of divine revelation, as chosen because of his faithfulness and humility ( ‫באמונתו‬ ‫[ ובענותו‬45:4; cf. Num 12:1-8]). All of these verses suggest that for Ben Sira humility and pride, both in behavior and attitude, virtually function as moral synonyms for wisdom and folly and this is why humility is presented as essential to the exercise of the mind in 3:17-29. Furthermore, while he appeals to Moses as an important exemplar of humility, at the root of his discourse about humility and epistemology is his presentation of himself as an inspired authority who is the students’ primary exemplar of wisdom and humility. 11 10F

3 Humility and Authority in the Community Rule The literature of the Dead Sea Scrolls provides an interesting counterpart to the relationship of authority, exemplarity, and humility in Sirach. One of the key documents for understanding the sectarian movement represented by this literature is S, which provides detailed instruction regarding entrance into, and conduct within, the sectarian community. While the original version of this text was probably composed in the mid-second century BCE, not long after Sirach, it has survived in multiple forms. The fullest form of this text is found in 1QS but shorter forms of S are found in several manuscripts from cave 4. Intriguingly, however, the manuscript of 1QS is dated to the early part of the first century BCE and the cave 4 manuscripts, which contain shorter forms of the text, are dated to later in the first century BCE. 12 This has suggested to some scholars that S underwent a process of abbreviation, but Metso has argued persuasively that despite the dating of the physical manuscripts, 1QS represents the latest and most developed form of the text. 13 In her model an early version of S contained a shorter version of the material in 1QS V-IX (minus VIII,15b-IX,11), though a shorter version of the material in 1QS V-VII may have been the original core.  11 WRIGHT, Ben Sira on the Sage as Exemplar, 165–182. 12 BOCKMUEHL, Redaction and Ideology, 541–542. 13 METSO, Textual Development, especially 69–106. For a judicious weighing of these alternate explanations see BOCKMUEHL, Redaction and Ideology, 543–548.

Exemplars of Humility and the Discourse of Authority in Second Temple Judaism  157

This block of material subsequently developed along two parallel lines. One line is represented by 4QSe and shows signs of editing that reinforced the community’s self-understanding through some additions, especially scriptural prooftexts. The other line is represented by 4QSb and 4QSd and incorporated material found in 1QS VIII,15b-IX,11 and the concluding psalm found in 1QS IX,26b-XI,22. Later the material found in 1QS I-IV was also added, though it is possible that the “Treatise on the Two Spirits” found in 1QS III,13-IV,26 existed independently before being included in S. Still later, material from these two lines was combined and then the central section underwent further redaction, resulting in the form of the text found in 1QS. 14 If it is true that 1QS represents a more developed form of S than those in the cave 4 manuscripts, then it is possible to detect shifts of perspective and emphasis in the evolution of the text. In a study of the redaction of S’s central section, Bockmuehl demonstrates that the latest form of the text represented by 1QS shows “a tightening religious practice in which atonement and forgiveness were increasingly limited to the sect itself and religious authority is concentrated in the hands of the Zadokite priests.” 15 For example, in 1QS V,2 the members of the group are under the authority of the “sons of Zadok” while in the earlier form of S, represented by 4QSb and 4QSd, they are accountable to the “many”. The authority of the “sons of Zadok” is a prominent feature of this more developed form of S, but the identity of these authoritative figures remains disputed. One popular interpretation is that the reference is genealogical and refers to Zadokite priests who were displaced by the Hasmoneans and became leaders within the sect. Building upon Metso, however, Collins argues that the title “sons of Zadok” may well be symbolic and honorific (as in the Damascus Document) as a means of asserting the priestly legitimacy and authority of the leaders of the sect. He astutely notes that the Hasmoneans themselves also asserted their own Zadokite pedigree (1 Macc 2:26, 54). 16 Thus, whether the Zadokite label was genealogical or ideological, in the development of S the consolidation of authority within the sect was accompanied by a discourse of authority rooted in the prestige of the priestly line of Zadok and was in competition with other would-be authorities in Second Temple Judaism who likewise appropriated (figures of) the past for their own claims of authority.

 14 METSO, Textual Development, 143–149. For a comparison of her model and that of other scholars see METSO, The Serekh Texts, 15–20. 15 BOCKMUEHL, Redaction and Ideology, 557. 16 COLLINS, Beyond the Qumran Community, 60–65.

158  Bradley C. Gregory For our purposes it may be observed that while details of Metso’s model of textual growth may be open to debate, if the main lines of her thesis are correct then it is possible to detect an increased emphasis on the importance of humility (‫ )ענוה‬that is correlated with changes in the rhetoric of authority in the document. A comparison of 1QS and 4QSb,d reveals that the earlier beginning of S underwent considerable reworking over time before attaining the form found in 1QS V,1-20. 17 Nevertheless, the parallel text in 4QSd confirms that an early version of S included a reference to humility. In 4QSd I,3 it is one of several traits that should characterize the “men of the Torah” as they submit to the authority of the “many” and it is contrasted with stubbornness. However, the importance of humility is transformed in 1QS in two important ways. First, as mentioned above, the locus of authority is changed from “the many” to that of the “sons of Zadok” which narrows the channels of power to these priestly figures. Second, their authority is exercised through decisions by lot and the outcome of implementing this procedure is expected to be “truth and humility” (along with righteousness, justice, and faithful love) among the community (1QS V,3-4). 18 The effect of these two changes from 4QSd to 1QS is that the priestly “sons of Zadok” are considered mediators of the divine voice (cf. V,9). 19 Given that such claims are by nature not open to empirical challenge or confirmation, submission to this authoritative structure is characterized as humility and rejection of it is equated with stubbornness. 20 Later in V,23-25, S specifies that adjustments to the levels of status within the community will be made on the basis of a yearly examination of members. The parallel text in 4QSd agrees with 1QS that advancement is on the basis of a member’s insight (1QS adds “actions” to this) and that demotion is on the basis of a member’s failings. Yet, while 4QSd II,4 goes on to say that reproof must be carried out “in faithful love” (‫)אהבת חסד‬, the form in 1QS has added “in truth and humility” (‫ )בא]מת[וענוה‬as well. 21 This addition incorporates the element of humility (and truth) into the necessary social interactions that were part of the com16 F

17F

18F

19F

20 F

 17 METSO, Textual Development, 144. 18 While divination by lot could be interpreted merely as idiomatic and metaphorical, Lange argues that in the sectarian legal texts it is a literal method (LANGE, Essene Position, 408–410). 19 LEANEY, Rule of Qumran, 166–167. 20 Hultgren raises the further possibility that by crafting these character qualities as an allusion to Mic 6:8 there may be an implicit connection with the community’s view of itself as a substitute for the temple, as in the allusion to Mic 6:8 in 1QS VIII,2 (HULTGREN, Damascus Covenant, 308–309). If so, such a claim would further support the authority claimed by the “sons of Zadok.” 21 METSO, Textual Development, 43.

Exemplars of Humility and the Discourse of Authority in Second Temple Judaism  159

plex maintenance of the hierarchical structure of the sect. Humility would be especially important for communal stability in delicate situations of reproof and judicial judgments. 22 Later in VI,26 speaking to others in stubbornness (typically the opposite of humility in 1QS) is equated with defying the authority of those higher in rank. While the section in which this statement is found is longer than the parallel text in 4QSd, column III of the latter breaks off at the equivalent of 1QS VI,12 and so it cannot be determined precisely when this statement came to be included in S. Nevertheless, it provides the conceptual complement to the role of humility in 1QS V,25. 23 The expansion and development of the importance of humility in the central section is matched by references to humility in the additional material of 1QS I-IV; VIII,15b-IX,11; and IX,26b-XI,22. While in IX,10 departing from the “counsel of the Torah”/the community’s regulations is characterized as a “total stubbornness of the heart” (‫)בכול שרירות לבם‬, the concluding hymn prizes the ability to respond in humility to those who are arrogant (XI,1). Furthermore, several references to humility in 1QS I-IV, a block of material added relatively late to S, reinforce the connection between humility and the authoritative structures of the community. Multiple times in 1QS I-II stubbornness of heart is condemned as incompatible with membership in the community (I,6; II,14). Then, in detailing the orderliness of the community, with the priests at the head, S prescribes that no member should move up or down from his proper place (II, 23). As Newsom observes, the use of language from Ps 78:5 implies that rank in the community is divinely mandated. 24 The reason given for remaining in one’s place is that the community should be characterized by “truth, proper humility, faithful love, and righteous purpose” (‫ )אמת וענות טוב ואהבת חסד ומחשבת צדק‬towards one another (II,24). 25 Thus, as in column V, humility is specifically coordinated with respecting the hierarchical order of the community and one’s proper place in it. Near the end of this section S claims that there is no cleansing for those 24F

 22 Newsom insightfully notes how essential humility could be in such situations in light of issues of status and rank (NEWSOM, Self as Symbolic Space, 142). 23 One additional case in the central section of S should be noted. In 1QS VIII,1-4 the council of the community is charged with implementing truth, righteousness, justice, and faithful love, but in the parallel found in 4QSe II,1 humility is also included in this list. It is more likely that ‫ וענוה‬was added to this manuscript or its exemplar than deleted (accidentally or intentionally) by 1QS or its exemplar. SCHOFIELD, From Qumran to the Yahad, 109. 24 NEWSOM, Self as Symbolic Space, 123. 25 Wernberg-Møller suggests that the characterization of humility as ‫ טוב‬may be due to the influence of Mic 6:8 (WERNBERG-MØLLER, The Manual of Discipline, 57). This would be notable since this same verse may be in the background of V,3 (see above).

160  Bradley C. Gregory who are stubborn in heart (III,3-4), but listed among the virtues which provide atonement for sin is “an upright and humble spirit” (III,8). This element is also found in the parallel in 4QSa (and perhaps 4QSc) 26 and is particularly significant given that the sectarian redaction of S shows an increasing emphasis on the atoning significance of the sect. 27 Finally, within the “Treatise of the Two Spirits” in 1QS III,13-IV,26 the first virtue listed as characterizing the spirit of truth is humility (IV,3) while arrogance and pride (‫ )גוה ורום לבב‬are indicative of the spirit of deceit (IV,9) but within the larger context of S this polarity of humility and pride functions diagnostically for a person’s proper status in the community. 28 In sum, in the compositional growth of S references to humility are increasingly introduced precisely as the rest of the document shows a tendency to strengthen the group’s identity in relation to the authority of the “sons of Zadok”. In conjunction with this transformation of S, humility is set forth as a virtue with a strongly social dimension which is tied to the stability of the hierarchical order of the sect and, more specifically, the recognition of the legitimate, divine authority of the priestly leaders. By characterizing those who are outside the community or who refuse to submit to the order of the community as the “stubborn of heart,” i.e. the opposite of those who are humble, the form of S found in 1QS further demarcates and reinforces the exclusive legitimacy of its own community and implies that within that community greater humility entails higher rank. Humility is thereby inscribed as a defining characteristic of the sect, is asserted to exist in proportion to each member’s status, and is exemplified particularly in the leadership. 29 This sectarian emphasis on humility finds reflexes elsewhere in the literature of the Dead Sea Scrolls. 30 For example, the inculcation of humility along with faithful love among one’s children is also deemed important in the Damascus Document (4Q266 9 iii,7) and in Words of the Maskil to All the Sons of Dawn (4Q298 3-4 ii,4-10). Interestingly, the latter appears to allude to Mic 6:8 in a way similar to that of 1QS. 31 However, in addition to S the importance of humility for the life of the sectarian community is especially evident in the Hodayot (e.g. 27F

 26 METSO, Textual Development, 35. 27 BOCKMUEHL, Redaction and Ideology, 551. Cf. NEWSOM, Self as Symbolic Space, 126. 28 NEWSOM, Self as Symbolic Space, 129. 29 MARKL, ‫ ָענָה‬II ‘ānāh, 171–172. 30 Similarities can also be found in texts that are not clearly sectarian (e.g. 4Q525 2 ii+3,6; 10,4; 14 ii,20). In 4QBless, Oh My Soulc the worshiper praises God for driving out stubbornness of heart, arrogance, and anger and transforming him into someone characterized by humility and patience (4Q436 1 ii,2; cf. 1QS IV,3). 31 KAMPEN, Wisdom Literature, 277–278.

Exemplars of Humility and the Discourse of Authority in Second Temple Judaism  161

1QHa IV,22; VI,14; XIII,23). Here humility renders one receptive and submissive to God’s will, which is understood as mediated through the leadership of the sect, 32 a notion strongly consonant with the role of humility in S.

4 Conclusion The connection between humility and authority in Sirach and in 1QS shows both similarities and differences. Both works construe humility as an important social virtue that depends on knowing one’s proper place and as essential for demarcating their own group/community as legitimate, though in S the element of social exclusivity is stronger. In particular, the compositional history of S reveals how closely correlated such claims were with the need to assert their own group identity over against other rival authorities who were then characterized as arrogant, presumptuous, and stubborn. While Ben Sira was socially aligned with the Jerusalem authorities prior to the rise of the Hasmoneans and sought to counter the claims of apocalyptic views, the community behind 1QS appears to have been marginalized from the Hasmonean power base in Jerusalem and sought to articulate their own identity as “poor” (or “oppressed”) and “humble” within that reality. And while Ben Sira appeals to Moses as an exemplar of humility, his primary emphasis is on his own authority, which is presented as legitimate because of his own rootedness in the scribal/sapiential tradition and the accompanying gift of divine inspiration. For the sectarian community of the Dead Sea Scrolls, on the other hand, the members were probably drawn from across the range of Judean society, including disaffected priests but also scribes trained in wisdom. 33 Yet in S the sectarian leaders of the community present their exemplarity and role as conduits of divine communication in terms of the legitimacy of the Zadokite priesthood. In conclusion, while there was clearly agreement among Second Temple Jews on the general sense of humility as a positive virtue, in contexts of competing authority precisely what qualified as humility naturally became somewhat self-referential. It was defined by the content of the authoritative figure’s teaching and thereby became a moral label (uncontroversial as praiseworthy) for behavior and assent which reinforced that same authority within their respective groups. Perhaps, then, the most intriguing question lurking behind this

 32 NEWSOM, Self as Symbolic Space, 262–271, 349. 33 BROOKE, Place of Wisdom, 20–33.

162  Bradley C. Gregory topic is: can the presentation of oneself as an authoritative exemplar of humility in contrast to rivals avoid being inherently self-contradictory? I think the evidence of Sirach and 1QS presents a possible answer. In both works humility involves knowing one’s proper place and, further, status is both earned through the cultivation of a certain kind of piety/character as well as in some sense dependent on divine sanction. As such, “false modesty” would not have been commendable. Therefore those at the top of the social hierarchy might well view moral excellence as an appropriate balance between giving themselves their proper due for their acquired position/wisdom, as in Sir 10:28, and recognizing that continued elevation of status requires a further deepening of humility in submitting to God, others, and the authoritative tradition they claim to represent. 34

Bibliography BERG, S., Ben Sira, the Genesis Creation Accounts, and the Knowledge of God’s Will: JBL 132 (2013) 139–157. BOCKMUEHL, M., Redaction and Ideology in the Rule of the Community (1QS/4QS): RevQ 72 (1998) 541–560. BROOKE, G., The Place of Wisdom in the Formation of the Movement behind the Dead Sea Scrolls, in: idem et al. (eds.), Goochem in Mokum, Wisdom in Amsterdam, Leiden 2016, 20–33. CAIRNS, D., Hybris, Dishonour, and Thinking Big: JHS 116 (1996) 1–32. COLLINS, J. J., Beyond the Qumran Community: The Sectarian Movement of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Grand Rapids 2010. CORLEY, J., Wisdom versus Apocalyptic and Science in Sirach 1,1-10, in: F. García Martínez (ed.), Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Biblical Tradition (BETL 168), Leuven 2003, 269–286. GOFF, M. 4QInstruction (WLAW 2), Atlanta: SBL, 2013. HASPECKER, J., Gottesfurcht bei Jesus Sirach: Ihre religiöse Struktur und ihre literarische und doktrinäre Bedeutung (AnBib 30), Rome 1967. HULTGREN, S., From the Damascus Covenant to the Covenant of the Community: Literary, Historical, and Theological Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ 66), Leiden 2007. KAMPEN, J., Wisdom Literature (Eerdmans Commentaries on the Dead Sea Scrolls), Grand Rapids 2011. LANGE, A., The Essene Position on Magic and Divination, in: M. Bernstein et al. (eds.), Legal Texts and Legal Issues (STDJ 23), Leiden 1997, 377–435.

 34 It is perhaps significant in this regard that Aristotle likewise commended a certain kind of “pride” or magnanimity (megalopsychia) regarding one’s achievements in virtue as essential to the moral life (Nicomachean Ethics 1123b-1125a).

Exemplars of Humility and the Discourse of Authority in Second Temple Judaism  163

LEANEY, A. R. C., The Rule of Qumran and Its Meaning: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary, Philadelphia 1966. MARBÖCK, J., Jesus Sirach 1-23 (HTKAT), Freiburg 2010. MARKL, D., ‫ ָענָה‬II ‘ānāh: ThWQ III: 166–173. METSO, S., The Textual Development of the Qumran Community Rule (STDJ 21), Leiden 1997. METSO, S., The Serekh Texts (LSTS 62/CQS 9), London 2007. NEWSOM, C., The Self as Symbolic Space: Constructing Identity and Community at Qumran (STDJ 52), Leiden 2004. PARDUE, S., The Mind of Christ: Humility and the Intellect in Early Christian Theology, London 2013. PROCKTER, L., Torah as a Fence against Apocalyptic Speculation: Ben Sira 3:17-24: WCJS 10 (1990) 245–252. SCHOFIELD, A., From Qumran to the Yahad: A New Paradigm of Textual Development for The Community Rule (STDJ 77), Leiden 2008. VOITILA, A., Is Ben Sira Opposing Apocalyptic Teaching in Sir 3,21-24?: ZAW 122 (2010) 234– 248. WERNBERG-MØLLER, P., The Manual of Discipline: Translated and Annotated with an Introduction (STDJ 1), Leiden 1957. WRIGHT, B. G., “Fear the Lord and Honor the Priest:” Ben Sira as Defender of the Jerusalem Priesthood, in: P.C. Beentjes (ed.), The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research (BZAW 255), Berlin 1997, 189–222. WRIGHT, B. G., Ben Sira on the Sage as Exemplar, in: idem, Praise Israel for Wisdom and Instruction: Essays on Ben Sira and Wisdom, the Letter of Aristeas and the Septuagint (JSJSup 131), Leiden 2008, 165–182.

Eric D. Reymond

Gibberish?

Sir 4:14 in Ms A I (T-S 12.863) Verso, Line 4 Abstract: Although the second colon of Sir 4:14 is often described as gibberish, one can in fact make sense of the letters and postulate a reading that accords with various orthographic tendencies in the Hebrew Ben Sira manuscript commonly labelled Ms A (T-S 12.863). The new assessment of the orthography and spelling suggests the contextually relevant sense “and God is with those who desire her.” The frequent description of the colon as non-sense derives, in part, from a reliance on printed editions of the text (by contrast to its form in the manuscript) as well as on a tendency to avoid looking for the sense of the words in the manuscript at hand in favor of postulating an “original” text. Keywords: Ben Sira (Sirach), lexicography, textual criticism Writing a commentary on Ben Sira is not an easy task, nor is translating the text unencumbered by theoretical hurdles. Our celebrant has, of course, meditated and written on some of these difficulties, especially as it relates to his upcoming commentary in the Hermeneia series. 1 In my work on Ben Sira, I often focus on the Hebrew text as found in specific manuscripts. 2 One problem I have encountered in translating Ben Sira concerns the interpretation of irregularly spelled words and phrases. Are the apparent misspellings mistakes by the scribe who copied a given manuscript or a reflection of his Vorlage? Related to this, how should one translate these apparent mistakes, especially if one’s intent is to represent how a medieval scribe / reader would have encountered the text? My focus here is on the difficulty of translating one short passage from the Hebrew of Ms A (T-S 12.863).  1 WRIGHT, Preliminary Thoughts, 89–109. It is an honor to contribute this small piece in celebration of Ben Wright, whose inquisitive spirit and rigorous scholarship have inspired me to think more carefully and critically about ancient Hebrew texts. 2 I am presently working on two long-term projects related to the translation of Ben Sira. With Samuel Adams I am at work on a commentary for the Yale Anchor series. The translation in this commentary attempts to imagine an early version of the book. With Jean-Sébastien Rey and Jan Joosten I am at work on a new edition of the Hebrew manuscripts of Ben Sira. The French / English that accompanies the Hebrew in this work translates the specific meanings of each verse in each manuscript individually.

https://doi.org/10.1515/ 9783110596373-011

Gibberish?  165

Often, one encounters in the Ben Sira Hebrew manuscripts words that are spelled in an unusual manner. In some cases, a word is found spelled so routinely in an unusual way, that we may assume the spelling represents a previously unattested form of a more familiar word. For example, what we would have expected to be ‫( *דון‬i.e., ‫“ )דָּ וֹן‬misery” (a noun known from Targumic Aramaic and other Aramaic dialects) is consistently written ‫( דין‬perhaps ‫)]?[ דָּ י ֹן‬: at Sir 14:1 (Ms A); 30:21 (Ms B); 23 (Ms B); 37:2 (Ms B and D); and 38:18 (Ms B). 3 This suggests that this spelling is not a mistake, but the true form of the Hebrew ֯ and ‫“ שמיעות‬hearings cognate, or a byform of ‫דון‬. 4 Other examples include ‫שמיעת‬ (?)” in Sir 8:9 (Ms A, D respectively) for what we would expect to be ‫*שמועות‬ “traditions”; and the reverse of this: ‫“ שמועה‬tradition” in Sir 5:11 (Ms C) for what we would expect to be ‫“ *שמיעה‬hearing.” In most other cases, however, the unusual looking word is likely a spelling error and occurs just once in the various Ben Sira manuscripts. One relatively common kind of mistake is the metathesis of letters, especially the metathesis of a mater (as elaborated below). In these cases, there would appear to be two possibilities. The spelling may have been made by the scribe who copied the manuscript that we possess (i.e., inadvertently while copying it). 5 Or, the mistake may have been made by an earlier scribe and then transmitted by the scribe who copied the manuscript that we possess. The latter possibility presumes that the scribes of our manuscripts attempted to transmit (more or less) precisely the text they were copying, including its mistakes and infelicities. This seems to be corroborated by diverse features of Ms A. Note, for example, that certain mistakes—that are clearly mistakes—are left uncorrected in Ms A (see the cases of metathesis listed below), while the scribes did correct other mistakes (e.g., by erasing letters or parts of letters [e.g., ‫מחיך‬  3 In these cases, the Greek translates with the word λύπη “pain, grief;” the Syriac translates with dwwn’ “misery” in Sir 30:21, 23. Cf. ‫“ דין‬judgement” (= ‫)דִּ ין‬. For a review of the research on this word in Ben Sira and various other proposed senses and derivations, see DIHI, Morphological and Lexical Innovations, 171–178. 4 This assumes that this is the correct interpretation of the word (for other proposals, see ibid.). Note that the phonetic shift of waw to yodh is not what is expected; we would expect the opposite shift before a back vowel (i.e., /o/ or /u/). See REYMOND, Qumran Hebrew, 134 and the various biblical and post-biblical examples cited there. Note in particular ‫ דוות‬dawwōt “vultures” (1QIsaa at Isa 34:15 and cf. MT ‫)דַּ יּוֹת‬. See QIMRON, Waw, 364. 5 The scribe who copied Ms A is likely to have been Abraham b. R. Shabbetai, dayyan of Minyat Zifta (Egypt) in ca. 1100 CE. This identification was first made by ENGEL, Codices Hebraicis, 32 n. 6; this was elaborated on by REY, Sagesses hébraiques, 24–27; most recently, Schlanger has detailed these correspondences in her paper “ Palaeography of the Hebrew Ben Sira Manuscripts.”

166  Eric D. Reymond changed to ‫“ מחיר‬price” Sir 6:15 Ms A II, T-S 12.864, recto, line 17]; by inserting letters above words [e.g., ‫“ ֻהוא‬he” Sir 6:11 Ms A II, T-S 12.864, recto, line 14]; by crossing out words [e.g., ‫“ יגלה‬he reveals” Sir 3:20 Ms A I, T-S 12.863, recto, line 11]; by placing cancellation dots above and/or below words [e.g., �ִ ֹ ‫“ ִע‬over” Sir 15:19, T-S 12.863, verso, line 1]; and by placing dots above words with the correction in the margin [e.g., ‫תנתע‬ ֒ corrected to ‫תנטע‬ ֒ “it will be planted” Sir 3:14 Ms A I, T-S 12.863, recto, line 7]). It seems too simplistic to suggest that the scribe corrected only those mistakes that he was aware of but did not correct those he was unaware of. In at least one case, a correction that is made seems to violate the basic grammar of (Biblical) Hebrew: ‫“ מהופין‬those considered beautiful” at Sir 13:22 (Ms A V [T-S 12.864] verso, line 15). Although we cannot assume that the scribe of Ms A wished to follow exactly all the elements of Biblical Hebrew grammar, the addition of the heh is hard to explain, if it is not interpreted as a reflection of the scribe’s Vorlage. 6 Also, as noted below, in Ms A certain words and verses are vocalized with vowel points that disagree with the words’ consonants. I assume that the scribe who copied the consonants from a preceding manuscript also copied the vowel points from a preceding manuscript. And, this would seem to reflect an intention to preserve the text faithfully. But, even if the scribe of Ms A had pointed the words himself, based on his own understanding of the words, this would still seem to reflect a desire not to alter drastically the consonants of the Vorlage. 7 A reverence on the part of scribes for the consonantal text of Ben Sira seems counter-intuitive given how many mistakes we find in it. Nevertheless, note how the scribe of Ms A represented the misspelling and correction in Sir 8:2 (Ms A III [ENA 2536] recto, line 9). An open circle is placed in the text above ‫ לא‬and the “qere” reading ‫“ לוֹ‬to him” is set in the margin above a dotted qoph. This, of 5F

 6 Is it due to some kind of Aramaic influence (note the final nun instead of mem on this form and the preceding)? The root ‫“ יפה‬to be beautiful,” however, does not occur in Aramaic. 7 There appears to be a precedent in other Genizah manuscripts for the same scribe to write the consonants and point the text, as is assumed for the Leningrad Codex B19. JEFFERSON, Popular Renditions of Hebrew Hymns, 260 notes that eight of the twenty piyyut manuscripts containing Tiberian vowels that she studied showed a correspondence between the “colour and strokes of the consonantal text and that of the vowel,” implying a single scribe was responsible for both, while only one manuscript had “clear indications that the vowels were added by a later hand.” In relation to Ben Sira Ms A, note also that the marginal writing (e.g., ‫ רע ויבֵא‬at Sir 10:13 Ms A IV [ENA 2536] recto, line 2) looks very similar (if not identical) to writing in the text.

Gibberish?  167

course, is the same way that qere readings are represented in the MT (e.g., Leningrad Codex B19). 8 The existence of numerous corrected mistakes presumes, of course, that at least some scribes who copied the Ben Sira manuscripts leading up to Ms A, or, more generally, the readers of these manuscripts, could recognize a misspelled word and, by extension, could make sense of such misspellings, much like any reader in the past or present. In antiquity and in the Middle Ages, such misspellings were perhaps even less of an obstacle to sense building since some scribes or readers presumably had already committed the text (or portions of it) to memory. In regard to translating Hebrew Ben Sira manuscripts, therefore, it does not seem unreasonable to me to translate some misspelled Hebrew words into coherent English words, especially if one’s intent is to render the sense that an ancient or medieval reader would have derived from the text. But, we must also recognize that not all examples are equally comprehensible and that it is, ultimately, impossible to know how medieval readers would have read a given manuscript. As an example of a mistake that is easy to make sense of, consider Sir 6:5 (Ms A II [T-S 12.864] recto, lines 9-10), where we find the following: ‫חיך ערב ירבה‬ ‫אוהב ושפתי חן שואלו שלום‬. The second-to-last word in the bicolon, ‫שואלו‬, must be a mistake for ‫*שואלי‬, the plural construct of the participle: “A sweet palate multiplies friends and gracious lips those giving greeting.” The form ‫ שואלו‬simply cannot be construed in a sensible way as another nominal or verbal form (e.g., an otherwise unknown po‘el = “gracious lips request greeting” [?]). 9 A more challenging bit of text is found in Sir 4:14b, in the Genizah Hebrew Ms A (folio page I [T-S 12.863], verso, line 4). The text of the entire bicolon is transliterated in Ben-Ḥayyim’s edition in the following manner: 10 8F

(!)‫משרתי קדש משרתיה ואלהו)!( במא)!( ויהא‬ With the exception of the parenthetical exclamation marks, every scholar transliterates the line in the same way. 11  8 Note even perplexing vocalizations may make more sense if we assume that the scribe did not wish to alter the consonantal text. Note, e.g., ‫ ז ִָריו‬in Sir 11:34, which would make more sense as ‫ז ִָרי‬, that is as the word “foreigner” with a nisbe ending. 9 For more examples, see my forthcoming paper, “Waw and Yodh in the Hebrew Manuscripts of Ben Sira.” 10 See BEN-ḤAYYIM, Ben Sira. 11 See, e.g., SCHECHTER/TAYLOR, Wisdom of Ben Sira, (6); LÉVI, L’Ecclésiastique, 2:16; BEENTJES, Ben Sira, 25.

168  Eric D. Reymond The second colon of this verse is commonly described as a nonsensical sequence of letters. Israel Lévi, one of the first to comment on the colon, described it this way: “Texte complètment disfiguré.” 12 Norbert Peters in 1902 considered the text “unübersetzbar” while Rudolf Smend described it as “vollkommen sinnlos.” 13 Subsequent scholars have repeated this evaluation numerous times with little significant variation: “‫( ”משובש‬Segal); 14 “MS A is jumbled here” (Skehan and Di Lella); 15 “H[ebräisch]A bietet einen unverständlichen Text” (Sauer); 16 “H[ebräisch] unverständlich” (Schreiner); 17 “Le texte hébreu est très corrompu” (Mopsik); 18 “El text, muy deteriorado, resulta intraducible” (Morla). 19 In the early decades of scholarship on the Hebrew texts, it was the tendency for commentators, when addressing a difficult Hebrew phrase or verse like that above, to label it a scribal error or mistake and, then, to offer in its place what was viewed as the original word or phrase. Obviously, the target of this research was the “true” or “original” text. Due to the relatively straightforward expression in the first colon (“those who serve her [i.e., Wisdom] serve the holy one”) and the rather transparent sense of the Greek (“those who serve her minister to the Lord; and those who love her the Lord loves”), 20 scholars early on suggested that the text underlying the second Hebrew colon in Ms A may have been ‫“ אל אוהב מאהביה‬God loves those who love her.” 21 Although this does not match the Syriac, the sense of the Greek is also found in the Syro-Hexapla and in the Latin. 22 Furthermore, it seems highly reminiscent of a passage from the MT, Prov 8:17: ‫“ אֲ נִי א ֹ ֲהבַיה אֵ הָב וּמְשַׁ ח ֲַרי י ִמְ צָאֻ֫ נְנִי‬I love those who love me (kethib: her) and those who seek me will find me.” 13F

14F

15F

16F

17F

18F

 12 LÉVI, L’Ecclésiastique, 2:17. The first scholars to comment on the verse wrote this: “The textual corruptions of the second clause of this verse can only be accounted for by assuming that the scribe was not always able to read the MS he had before him, and thus copied as many letters as he could discern” (SCHECHTER/TAYLOR, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 41). 13 PETERS, Ecclesiasticus, 11; SMEND, Sirach, erklärt, 40. 14 SEGAL, Sefer Ben Sira, 25. 15 SKEHAN/DI LELLA, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 170. 16 SAUER, Jesus Sirach / Ben Sira, 71. 17 SCHREINER, Jesus Sirach 1-24, 33. 18 MOPSIK, Ben Sira, 82. 19 MORLA, Ben Sira, 39. 20 This is the translation of Wright from NETS (= New English Translation of the Septuagint) 21 See, e.g., SCHECHTER/TAYLOR, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 41; LÉVI, L’Ecclésiastique, 2:17 cites Schechter and Taylor and also suggests ‫ואהביה יאהב ייי‬. 22 The Syriac reads: mšmšnyh mšmšny qwdš’ wbyt mšryh rḥm ’lh’ “those who serve her serve the holy place and God loves his sanctuary.”

Gibberish?  169

However, the sense of the colon as it exists in Ms A does not depend on a reconstruction. The sense of the text preserved on the manuscript page may be entirely different from how it started and the text as it exists in Ms A deserves to be considered as it stands, in the context of this manuscript. Initially, we may ask: Would a reader of Ms A have been able to draw any sense from these letters? Given the evaluation of the colon by the numerous scholars cited above, it seems unlikely. Nevertheless, it does not seem impossible. There are three primary difficulties with reading the second colon in a sensible fashion, each of which has a rather simple and plausible explanation. Note first that the initial group of letters (‫ )אלהו‬can be construed as a case of metathesis for ‫“ *אלוה‬God.” The second (‫ )במא‬and third (‫ )ויהא‬group of letters can be read together as a single expression (‫“ במאויהא‬with those who desire her”). Finally, the anomalous spelling of the pronominal suffix can be explained as due to influence from RH and/or Aramaic. Each of these explanations is taken up individually in the following paragraphs. First, as just mentioned, the initial sequence of letters (‫ )אלהו‬can be construed as a misspelling of the word ‫“ *אלוה‬God.” Although the word does not occur elsewhere in Ms A, it does occur in other Hebrew manuscripts of Ben Sira and is such a common word it is easy to imagine a reader seeing these letters as a simple case of misspelling. 23 Notice that the metathesis of a mater is not terribly unusual among the Ben Sira manuscripts and that a reader would have encountered such spelling mistakes with some frequency. In Ms A, for instance, metathesis involving a mater occurs several times. In Sir 6:22 (Ms A), this is reflected in the disparity between the “qere”and “kethib” readings of ‫נֹכְוחָה‬, nokǝḥɔ “it is justified” (“qere”) vs. nǝkoḥɔ “obvious” (“kethib”). A similar disparity between “qere”and “kethib”is found in Sir 16:18 (Ms A): ‫ע ֹמְ דִ ים‬, ‘omǝdim “those standing” vs. ‘ămudim “pillars,” though these are perhaps both mistakes for ‫“ *מועדים‬they shake.” 24 Note also in Ms A, ‫ וישתיהו‬at Sir 15:14 for an expected ‫“ וישיתהו‬he will set him,” as found in Ms B. In Sir 16:9 (Ms A), one also finds ‫הנודשים‬. Since the roots ‫ נדש‬and ‫ ידש‬are otherwise unknown in Hebrew, one can explain this form as a mistake for ‫*הנדושים‬ “those crushed,” the niphal participle of ‫דוש‬. 25 This fits the context fairly well 2F

24F

 23 It occurs in Sir 35:13 (Ms B), with a waw mater, and is presumed in Sir 41:4 (Mas), based on the lone surviving trace of a heh in that scroll and the corresponding ‫ אל‬in Ms B. 24 The text would read: ‫“ ברדתו עליהם ע ֹמְ דִ ים‬when he went down to them they were shaking.” See, e.g., LÉVI, L’Ecclésiastique, 2: 118; SMEND, Sirach, erklärt, 150. 25 The root ‫ נדש‬does occur in Egyptian Aramaic of the Persian period, but not in later dialects. Alternatively, the form as it exists could be a nuphal participle. Discouraging this is the lack of any other evidence for the nuphal of this root.

170  Eric D. Reymond (‫“ ולא חמל על גוי חרם הנודשים בעונם‬he does not have pity for a nation devoted to the ban, those crushed by their own iniquity”). 26 Other examples possibly involving metathesis of a mater include ‫ כנִּיום‬in Sir 10:11 (Ms A) for an earlier spelling ‫*כינים‬ “gnats.” 27 Note that the use of a mater yodh to mark an etymological short /i/ (= TH hiriq) followed by a geminated consonant is typical of RH and is not infrequent in Ben Sira manuscripts. 28 Note also ‫“ שוכר‬tenant” (Ms A) vs. ‫“ שכיר‬hireling” (Ms C) Sir 7:20 [cf. ‫ שוכרו‬CD XI, 12]). Other examples of metathesis are also found in Ms A. Note, for example, the spelling ‫ עיניו‬for ‫‘( *עניו‬onyo) “his poverty” in Sir 10:31 (Ms A), where the metathesized yodh has not been corrected. The exact same error occurs in Ms B at Sir 10:31. In addition, note the last word in Sir 3:17: ‫בני את כל מלאכתיך בענוה הלוך‬ “my child, with all your task go in humility.” 29 For a variety of reasons, the last word is likely to be a mistake for ‫“ כלה‬complete!” (which occurs with ‫ מלאכה‬in Gen 2:2 and Exod 40:33). 30 As a comparison, Ms B also offers other examples of metathesis involving maters, including ‫“ היו‬they were” (Ms B) for ‫“ הוי‬o!” (Ms Bm) in Sir 37:3; 31 ‫שולח‬ “one sending” (Ms B) for ‫( שלוח‬Ms Bm) “beam, messenger” in Sir 43:4; and most significantly the metathesis of a waw and heh: ‫“ אוהב‬friend” (Ms B) for ‫“ *אהוב‬one loved by” in Sir 46:13. 32 29F

31F

 26 On the other hand, the spelling might not reflect metathesis or the nuphal, but instead confusion between daleth and resh, implying the correct reading ‫“ *הנורשים‬those dispossessed,” which is, in fact, implied by the Greek. SMEND, Sirach, erklärt, 147 reads ‫ ;הנורשים‬REY, Sagesses hébraiques, 105 reads a daleth and notes that most commentators do the same. 27 Alternatively, ‫ כנִּיום‬is a misspelling for ‫ *כנים‬and there is no metathesis. 28 Note, e.g., ‫“ היכנע‬be humbled” Sir 4:25 [Ms A]; ‫“ איותה‬you desire” Sir 6:37 [Ms A]; ‫“ כיניתה‬you titled” Sir 36:17 [Ms B] and ‫“ ריותה‬she saturates” Sir 39:22 [Ms B]; ‫“ אימץ‬he strengthened” Sir 42:17 [Ms B]; ‫“ תיקן‬he straightened” Sir 47:9 [Ms B]; ‫“ ניבע‬he poured forth” Sir 50:27 [Ms B]). 29 See the discussion in the forthcoming REYMOND, The Poetry of Manuscript C. 30 The qal form of the verb also occurs with ‫ מלאכה‬as object in 1 Chr 28:20; 2 Chr 29:34. 31 This might also be connected to the confusion of waw and yodh. 32 In Sir 41:14 (Ms B) one finds ‫“ מוסתר‬hidden,” the apparent hophal participle. The hiphil is attested in BH, and although the hophal is not attested, it seems conceivable that Ben Sira knew this stem. All the same, the hophal stem is only attested rarely elsewhere in Amoraic and later medieval literature (Ma’agarim list only five other clear attestations). Most likely, this form in Ben Sira is the result of metathesis of the waw, the intended form a pual participle ‫*מסותר‬, akin to the pual participle in Ms Bm, ‫מסותרת‬. The pual is attested once in BH, at least once in the DSS (1QHa XVI, 11), and many times in early and medieval piyyut. In addition, in Ms B one finds quite a few similar cases of uncorrected metathesized maters. See ‫ ”?“ סירים‬for ‫*סריס‬ “eunuch” in Sir 30:20 (Ms B); ‫( גימילות‬Ms Bm) for ‫( גמילות‬Ms D) “charity” in Sir 37:11; ‫( וימי‬Ms B) for ‫( ומי‬Mas, Bm) “and who?” in Sir 42:25.

Gibberish?  171

It bears mentioning that the above forms are usually not referred to as “senseless” or “untranslatable.” They are often simply glossed as a scribal mistake and when they are translated by commentators, they are translated according to their likeliest sense, based on the context. For example, the word spelled ‫ אוהב‬in Sir 46:13 (Ms B), which should mean “friend” (based on its letters alone), is translated by Lévi as “[a]imé de” (based on the context); the form ‫ וישתיהו‬at Sir 15:14 (Ms A), which should mean “he drank it” (based only on the letters), is translated by Abegg as “he put him” and by Morla as “y los pusos” (in both cases based on context). 33 Given the precedence and prevalence of such mistakes, it does not seem unreasonable that a medieval reader would have seen ‫ ואלהו‬and thought “and God...” The second sequence of letters in Sir 4:14b, ‫במא‬, may be read together with the third sequence of letters, ‫ויהא‬, in a rather straight forward manner: ‫במאויהא‬ “with those desiring her.” Although not reading the initial beth as a preposition, the consonants of the underlying Vorlage were conceived of as ‫“ מאויה‬those desiring her” by one of the text’s early commentators, Louis Ginzberg. 34 He was followed by Norbert Peters in 1913; Otto Rickenbacher in 1973; and (more recently) by Morla. 35 In relation to reading the two groups of letters as a single expression, we should note several things. First, notice the nature of the space between the two groups of consonants. There is a relatively narrow space between the bottom left leg of the aleph and the bottom of the following waw, but a broader space between the top of the aleph and the top of the waw. The space between the bottom most parts of the letters is clearly narrower than the space between ‫במא‬ and the preceding group of letters, ‫ואלהו‬, and is just slightly narrower than the space between ‫ ויהא‬and the following word, ‫שומע‬. Although the space between ‫ במא‬and ‫ ויהא‬may have been intended to mark a division between words in Ms A or its Vorlage, it is conceivable that a reader, faced with two sets of nonsensical letters, might read all the letters together as a single expression, especially given the relatively small space between the bottom of the aleph of ‫ במא‬and the waw of ‫ויהא‬. In Ms A, one rarely finds irregularly spaced groups of letters within words. For example, in Sir 12:16 (Ms A V [T-S 12.864] recto, line 18) one finds a space separating the heh and the following

 33 LÉVI, L’Ecclésiastique, 117; ABEGG/TOWES, Ben Sira; MORLA, Ben Sira, 139. 34 GINZBERG, Randglossen zum hebräischen Ben Sira, 2:613. 35 PETERS, Jesus Sirach oder Ecclesiasticus, 44; RICKENBACHER, Weisheits Perikopen bei Ben Sira, 38; MORLA, Ben Sira, 39.

172  Eric D. Reymond mem in the word ‫“ מהמרות‬pits,” such that the word appears like ‫מה מרות‬. 36 In this case, the space is especially noticeable since the other letters are grouped so closely together (i.e., ‫ מה‬on the one hand and ‫ מרות‬on the other). Compare the similarly spaced words ‫“ ומה נפשי‬and what is my life” (Sir 16:17 Ms A VI [T-S 12.863] verso, line 21). 37 Another example is ‫“ בריותיו‬his creations” in Sir 16:16 (Ms A VI [T-S 12.863] verso, line 19), where a relatively large space separates ‫ בר‬from ‫יותיו‬. Yet another example, is ‫“ תפארתם‬their wonder” (Sir 10:22 Ms A IV [ENA 2536] recto, line 8), where a space separates the aleph from the resh. In other cases, the spacing of a single letter is at issue. Note the heh that stands between ‫“ ולרוב‬and the greatness of” and ‫“ לחש‬charm” in Sir 12:18 (Ms A V [T-S 12.864] recto, line 21); the heh seems closer to the beth of ‫ ולרוב‬than the lamedh of ‫לחש‬, to which it belongs. 38 Similarly, the śin / šin at the end of ‫תבקש‬ “you seek” in Sir 11:10 (Ms A IV [ENA 2536] recto, line 28) seems closer to the following lamedh of ‫“ לא‬no” than to the preceding qoph. In all these cases, the context makes clear what the proper word division is. 39 It seems plausible that a reader would have made sense of the break between consonants in Sir 4:14b in a similar way. A final factor to be explained in relation to making sense of ‫ במאויהא‬as a single expression is the final aleph. Here, too, it seems likely that a medieval reader could make sense of the form rather easily. The aleph could be read as a mater for the 3fs suffix. Although unusual in classical Hebrew orthography, it is nevertheless rarely attested (e.g., ‫“ אַ תִּ וקֶ יהָא‬its galleries” Ezek 41:15; ‫“ כותבהא‬write it!” 1QIsaa at Isa 30:8; ‫“ חטותיהא‬her sins” 4Q176 1–2 i, 6). 40 More importantly, it is not uncommon in some manuscripts of the Mishna, including the Kaufmann manu38F

39F

 36 See the image in the Appendix. 37 See the image in the Appendix. 38 Note too the space between the second taw of ‫ תתעלם‬and the following ‘ayin in Sir 4:2 (Ms A I [T-S ] recto, line 22) and a space between the aleph and following nun of ‫ אנשי‬in Sir 15:20 (Ms A VI [T-S ] verso, line 2). Though, it should be added, that the spaces between these letters are generally not as wide as those between words. 39 Note also the beth in the phrase ‫“ איש רע בעל‬wicked man, master of” in Sir 6:1 (Ms A II [T-S 12.864] recto, line 6), which seems closer to the preceding word than to the final two letters, ‘ayin-lamedh. The opposite problem is also in evidence: sometimes words seem to be written too close to each other, which creates confusion. For instance, note the phrase ‫“ והשיע לך‬he will delight you” Sir 13:6 (Ms A V [T-S 12.864] recto, line 28) where the prepositional phrase is written as if it were part of the preceding word. The phrase ‫“ מְ עַט הוּא‬it is little” Sir 14:9 (Ms A V [T-S 12.864] verso, line 26) is written as one word. In Sir 16:2 (Ms A VI [T-S 12.865] verso, line 4), one reads ‫תבעבם‬, which KISTER, Some Notes on Biblical Expressions, 163 has observed, should be read as two separate words: ‫“ תבע בם‬do [not] rejoice with them.” 40 In 1QIsaa alone it occurs eighteen times (counted through Accordance software).

Gibberish?  173

script, where it occurs some seventeen times as part of the 3fs suffix on verbal forms (e.g., ‫“ הִיתִּ ירוּהָא‬they did [not] permit her” m. Yebam. 10:2). It is, of course, much more common in Aramaic (e.g., ‫“ שוריהא‬her walls” 4Q457 12, 3; ‫“ בנהא‬her children” Targ. Onq. and Targ. Ps.-Jon. at Gen 3:15; ‫משבחהא‬ “he praises her” Targ to Prov 31:28) and it would not be unprecedented to find in the Genizah Ben Sira Hebrew manuscripts a feature of Aramaic orthography. Note, for example, the spelling of the masculine plural morpheme with nun in ‫“ מגולין‬they were revealed” in Sir 16:15 (Ms A); and the final nuns on the participles, as well as the heh of the hophal conjugation in the second participle of Sir 13:22 (Ms A): ‫“ ודבריו מכוערין מהופין‬though his words are ugly, they are declared beautiful.” 41 Furthermore, the aleph appears as a mater in some passages of Ben Sira itself, in a manner not dissimilar to how it sometimes is used in Aramaic. In Ms A, the aleph seems to mark /e/ in ‫“ הכאף‬bow!” (Sir 4:7), which form likely derives from the root ‫ כפף‬and would be vocalized according to Tiberian norms as ‫ ָהכֵף‬. Aleph marks /ō/ (or /o/): ‫ לא‬for ‫“ לוֹ‬for him” at Sir 8:2 (Ms A and Am) and similarly ‫ לא‬for ‫“ *לו‬for him” at Sir 25:8 (Ms C) and 43:12 (Ms B). Aleph also marks /ā/ (or /ɔ/) in Sir 31:28 (Ms B), if one reads ‫“ דאי‬enough” (instead of ‫)ראי‬, as I have recently proposed. 42 The overall sense of 4:14b, given the above interpretation, is also rather transparent. The assertion that God is “with” a person or group of people is common. It forms one of the basic greetings articulated between individuals in the Bible: ‫‘“ יהוה עמכם‬may the Lord be with you’” (Ruth 2:4). 43 In these cases, the preposition is usually ‫עם‬. In other cases, however, the same basic idea is articulated with ‫“ את‬with” (e.g., ‫“ ויהי יהוה את־יהודה‬the Lord was with Judah” Judg 1:19) and with the beth preposition. Notice, in particular, ‫“ אלהים בדור צדיק‬God is with the generation of the righteous (Ps 14:5) and ‫‘“ בך אל‬God is with you’” (Isa 45:14). Furthermore, in Ms A, note that at Sir 11:22 (Ms A IV [ENA 2536] verso, line 12) we might find an expression similar to that of Ps 14:5, articulated with 41F

 41 In addition, in Sir 7:15 (Ms A), the 3fs independent pronoun is spelled ‫“ הי‬she” (cf. Aramaic ‫ הי‬in Targ. Neof. at Gen 35:6); in Sir 15:19 (Ms A), the 3ms independent pronoun is spelled ‫הו‬ “he”; cf. Aramaic ‫ הו‬in 4Q550 7+7a, 1 and in 1Q20 XX, 28 (following MURAOKA, Qumran Aramaic, 25). Note also the Aramaic form of the 3mp pronoun in the marginal alternative of ‫“ גויתהן‬their (mp) body” Sir 37:25 (Ms D). 42 REYMOND, New Readings and New Senses in the Hebrew to Ben Sira, 5–7. In Qumran Aramaic, aleph appears as a mater for word internal /ā/; see MURAOKA, Qumran Aramaic, 28. The interlinear aleph of ‫“ וממקנהא‬of one selling” (hiphil of ‫ )קנה‬Sir 37:11 (Ms B) may be interpreted as marking not an alternative orthography, but an alternative word, namely “one jealous” (the piel of ‫)קנא‬, which participle appears in the preceding verse. 43 See also, e.g., Gen 21:22; 1 Sam 17:37; 20:13; 1 Chr 22:11, 16.

174  Eric D. Reymond the beth preposition, though the letter is nearly entirely abraded: ‫“ ברכת אל ֯בגרל צדיק‬the blessing of God is with the lot of the righteous.” A final factor encouraging the proposed reading of Sir 4:14b is the nature of the verb ‫אוה‬. The verb often connotes a lusty kind of desire and this fits with the semi-erotic dimension of Wisdom’s pursuit described throughout Ben Sira’s text (e.g., in Sir 51:13–30, as found in 11Q5 xxi 11–xxii 1). 44 Collectively, the above proposals contribute to a reasonable sense for the second colon, requiring only the assumption of a metathesized waw mater, the unusual separation of letters within a word, and the exceptional use of an aleph mater. The entire bicolon would read: ‫משרתי קדש משרתיה *ואלוה במאויהא‬ Those who serve her serve the holy one, and God is with those who desire her. Would a reader have been able to make sense of the second bicolon in this way? It is uncertain, but I believe that it is not beyond the realm of possibility. It seems legitimate to me, then, to translate the Hebrew expression into a sensible English phrase. A last question emerges from this analysis. Why have so many scholars in the past not seen this possibility? At least partially, I believe, it is a tendency to read the transliterated text and not the actual manuscript. Although the transliteration accurately reflects the letters, it does not reflect the nature of the space between the two sets of letters ‫ במא‬and ‫ויהא‬. We are trained, of course, to see separations between letters in printed texts as clear indicators of word divisions. But, in manuscripts (even in contemporary English manuscripts, like letters) we are more likely to expect some variation in the spacing between letters and, therefore, we are able to see connections between letters that would otherwise not be obvious.

 44 See my analysis of this poem: Reymond, New Idioms within Old, 21-50.

Gibberish?  175

Appendix

Figure 1. Ms A I (T-S 12.863) verso, line 4 (Sir 4:14-15): ‫משרתי קדש משרתיה ואלהו במא ויהא שומע לי ישפט אמת‬ (Printed with the permission of the Syndics of Cambridge University Library)

Figure 2. Ms A I (T-S 12.863) verso, line 4 (Sir 4:14-15): ‫ואלהו במא ויהא שומע‬ (Printed with the permission of the Syndics of Cambridge University Library)

Figure 3. Ms A V (T-S 12.864) verso, line 18 (Sir 12:16): ‫“ יחשוב מהמרות עמוקות‬they devise deep pits.” (Printed with the permission of the Syndics of Cambridge University Library)

Figure 4. Ms A VI (T-S 12.863) verso, line 21 (Sir 16:17): ‫“ אודע ומה נפשי בקצות‬I am [not] known and what is my life in the ends of... ?” (Printed with the permission of the Syndics of Cambridge University Library)

176  Eric D. Reymond

Bibliography ABEGG, Martin G. / Towes, Casey, Ben Sira, in: Accordance 9.5, Altamonte Springs 2007, 2009. BEN-ḤAYYIM, Zeev, The Book of Ben Sira: Text, Concordance and an Analysis of the Vocabulary. The Historical Dictionary of the Hebrew Language; Jerusalem 1973. BEENTJES, Pancratius C., The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew: A Text Edition of All Extant Hebrew Manuscripts and a Synopsis of All Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts (2nd ed., VTSup 68), Atlanta 2006 (1st ed. 1997). DIHI, Haim, The Morphological and Lexical Innovations in the Book of Ben Sira, Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Beersheba: Ben Gurion University of the Negev, 2004. (Hebrew). GINZBERG, Louis, Randglossen zum hebräischen Ben Sira, in: C. Bezold (ed.), Orientalische Studien: Theodor Nöldeke zum siebzigsten Geburtstag (2. März 1906), Gießen 1906, 2: 609–625. JEFFERSON, Rebecca J. W., Popular Renditions of Hebrew Hymns in the Middle Ages, Based on a Selection of Vocalized Liturgical Poems by Solomon Ibn Gabirol from the Cairo Genizah, Unpublished PhD. dissertation, Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2004. KISTER, Menahem, Some Notes on Biblical Expressions and Allusions and the Lexicography of Ben Sira, in: T. Muraoka and J. F. Elwolde (eds.), Sirach, Scrolls, and Sages (STDJ 33), Leiden 1999, 160–187. LÉVI, Israel, L’Ecclésiastique (2 vols.), Paris 1898–1901. Maagarim: The Academy of the Hebrew Language Historical Dictionary Project, maagarim.hebrew-academy.org.il MOPSIK, Charles, La Sagesse de ben Sira, Lagrasse 2003. MORLA, Víctor, Los Manuscritos Hebreos de Ben Sira: Traducción y Notas (Asociación Bíblica Española 59), Estella 2012. MURAOKA, Takamitsu, A Grammar of Qumran Aramaic (ANES 38), Leuven 2011. PETERS, Norbert, Der jüngst wiederaufgefundene hebräische Text des Buches Ecclesiasticus, Freiburg 1902. PETERS, Norbert, Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder Ecclesiasticus (EHAT 25), Münster 1913. PIETERSMA, Albert / WRIGHT, Benjamin G. (eds.), New English Translation of the Septuagint, Oxford 2007. QIMRON, Elisha, Waw as Marker for a Glide, in: Z. Talshir et al. (eds.), Homage to Shmuel: Studies in the World of the Bible, Jerusalem 2001, 362–375 (Hebrew). Rey, Jean-Sébastien, Sagesses hébraiques de l’époque hellénistique: Éditions, traductions, commentaires, perspectives historiques et linguistiques; Tome 2: Le manuscrit A de Ben Sira, Édition critique, traduction et notespaléographiques et philologiques, Unpublished habilitation thesis, Strasbourg: Université de Strasbourg, 2012. REYMOND, Eric D., New Idioms within Old: Poetry and Parallelism in the Non-Masoretic Poems of 11Q5(= 11QPsa) (SBLEJL 31), Atlanta 2011. REYMOND, Eric D., Qumran Hebrew: An Overview of Orthography, Phonology, and Morphology (RBS 76), Atlanta 2014. REYMOND, Eric D., New Readings and New Senses in the Hebrew to Ben Sira: ANES 54 (2017) 1– 16. REYMOND, Eric D., Waw and Yodh in the Hebrew Manuscripts of Ben Sira, Paper delivered at the conference “The Pursuit of Wisdom and Human Flourishing: A Virginia Conference on the

Gibberish?  177

Book of Ben Sira and Its Contexts,” held at Union Presbyterian Seminary in Richmond and the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, 10–12 July, 2017. REYMOND, Eric D., The Poetry of Manuscript C, in: Discovering, Deciphering, and Dissenting: Ben Sira’s Hebrew Text, 1896-2016, Berlin, forthcoming. RICKENBACHER, Otto, Weisheits Perikopen bei Ben Sira (OBO 1), Freiburg 1973. SAUER, Georg, Jesus Sirach / Ben Sira: Übersetzt und erklärt (ATDA 1), Göttingen 2000. SCHECHTER, S. / Taylor, C., The Wisdom of Ben Sira: Portions of the Book of Ecclesiasticus, Cambridge 1899. SCHLANGER, Judith Olszowy, The Palaeography of the Hebrew Ben Sira Manuscripts, Paper delivered at the conference “Discovering, Deciphering, Dissenting: Ben Sira’s Hebrew Text, 1896–2016,” held at St. John’s College, Oxford University 12–14 September, 2016. SCHREINER, Josef., Jesus Sirach 1–24 (NEB), Würzburg 2002. SEGAL, M. Z., Sefer Ben Sira ha-Shalem (2nd ed.), Jerusalem 1958. SIRAT, Collette et al. (eds.), Codices Hebraicis Litteris Exarati Quo Tempore Scripti Fuerint Exhibentes, Tome III de 1085 à 1140, Turnhout 2002. SKEHAN, Patrick W. / Di Lella, Alexander A., The Wisdom of Ben Sira (AB 39), New York 1987. SMEND, Rudolf, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach, erklärt, Berlin 1906. WRIGHT, Benjamin G., Preliminary Thoughts about Preparing the Text of Ben Sira for a Commentary, in: W. Kraus and M. Karrer (eds.), Die Septuaginta: Text – Wirkung – Rezeption, Tübingen 2014, 89–109.

After completion of this article, I ran across A. M. Habermann’s very terse proposal of a similar, though not identical, understanding for this passage as ‫“ במתאויה ]אל הו]א‬God is with those who desire her.” See A. M. Habermann, ‫עיונים בבן ספר‬, in: Sefer Segal: Studies in the Bible, Presented to Professor M. H. Segal by His Colleagues and Students, Jerusalem 1964, 297 (296–299).

Tobias Nicklas

Die Idee von „Geschichte“ im 2. Makkabäerbuch Abstract: Das zweite Makkabäerbuch als „Geschichtswerk“ wurde in den vergangenen Jahren und Jahrzehnten breit diskutiert. Zumeist standen dabei die Fragen nach der historischen Zuverlässigkeit des Textes und der Vergleichbarkeit mit anderen Geschichtsdarstellungen im Mittelpunkt des Interesses. Vernachlässigt wurde jedoch zumeist die Frage nach der narrativen Struktur der Geschichtserzählung in 2 Makk: Wie genau und aus welcher Perspektive erzählt der Text „Geschichte“? Der vorliegende Beitrag will genau darauf seinen Fokus legen. Von Interesse ist dabei die die grundlegende Frage nach der Theologizität der Geschichtsdarstellung in 2 Makk und die Frage nach anthropologischen Grundbestimmungen hinsichtlich von Individualität und Kollektivität, sowie Aktivität und Passivität des Menschen. Bei näherer Untersuchung wird dabei deutlich, dass 2 Makk zwar grundsätzlich eine theologische Geschichtsschreibung entwirft, diesen Entwurf aber nicht konsequent durchführt. Der Mensch als Einzelperson und als Kollektiv ist von Zorn und Gnade des epiphanen Gottes abhängig, besitzt jedoch die Fähigkeit, jene zu wandeln und ist im Verlauf der Erzählung immer wieder mit Ereignissen konfrontiert, die keinerlei theologische Deutung erfahren. Keywords: Theologische Geschichtsschreibung, 2 Makkabäer, Geschichte, Geschichtsdarstellung, Erzählte Geschichte, Jüdische Lebensweise, Griechische Lebensweise

1 Einleitung Die Frage, inwiefern das 2. Makkabäerbuch als „Geschichtswerk“ zu verstehen ist, wird in den üblichen Einleitungen zum Text regelmäßig angesprochen. 1 Dabei spielen vor allem die folgenden beiden Aspekte eine entscheidende Rolle: (1) Inwiefern ist das 2. Makkabäerbuch vergleichbar mit Geschichtsdarstellungen seiner Zeit? (2) Inwiefern kann dem 2. Makkabäerbuch als „Geschichtswerk“  1 Ausführlich hierzu die Diskussion bei Schwartz, 2 Macc, 38-56; zur historischen Deutung v.a. der (angeblichen) Religionsverfolgung unter Antiochus IV. vgl. etwa GRUEN, Hellenism and Persecution.

https://doi.org/10.1515/ 9783110596373-012

Die Idee von „Geschichte“ im 2. Makkabäerbuch  179

vertraut werden? Oder mit anderen Worten: Wie zuverlässig sind die historischen Daten, die uns der Text bietet? Dabei spielt gerne auch die Frage eine Rolle, ob und inwiefern die vom Text zitierten, angeblichen Dokumente der seleukidischen Reichsverwaltung als authentisch zu betrachten sind oder nicht. 2 Bei diesen Überlegungen tritt eine andere, m.E. jedoch genauso interessante Fragestellung in den Hintergrund: Ganz gleich, ob wir die Geschichtsdarstellung des 2 Makk als auf verlässlichen Fakten basierend oder als weitgehend unzuverlässig betrachten, der Text erzählt in jedem Fall „Geschichte“. Dies kann jedoch auf verschiedene Weise und vor dem Hintergrund sehr unterschiedlicher grundlegender Perspektiven eines Autors auf Mensch und Welt geschehen. 3 In seiner Regensburger Vorlesungsreihe „Wie theologisch ist die Kirchengeschichte“ hat jüngst Christoph Markschies bereits in der Geschichtsschreibung der Antike verschiedene Zugänge zur Bedeutung des Handelns Gottes in der Geschichte entdeckt: 4 Bereits in Geschichtsdarstellungen vor der Aufklärung gebe es neben Tendenzen zur „Theologisierung“ von Geschichte auch solche der „Ent-Theologisierung“. Zudem verwies Markschies auf eine Reihe von (bewussten wie unbewussten) Grund- und Vorentscheidungen, die jeder Geschichtsdarstellung vorausliegen und sie prägen. In Anlehnung an die eben formulierten Gedanken möchte ich im Folgenden eine Reihe von Fragen an die Geschichtsdarstellung des 2. Makkabäerbuches stellen: (1) Dass das 2. Makkabäerbuch den Gott Israels als den vielleicht entscheidenden Protagonisten der erzählten „Geschichte“ versteht, ist sicherlich keine Frage. Wir haben es im 2 Makk also mit theologischer Geschichtsschreibung zu tun, für die das Handeln Gottes eine entscheidende Rolle spielt. Doch wie konsequent geht der Text dabei vor? (2) Welche Vorentscheidungen von der Rolle des Menschen in der Geschichte liegen dem Text zugrunde? Interessiert er sich in erster Linie für den Menschen als Individuum oder als Teil einer Gruppe? Versteht der Autor den Menschen als passiv „Geschichte“ erleidend oder als aktiv „handelnd“? Ist die Perspektive des Textes universal oder lokal? Verarbeitet er das geschichtlich Erfahrene als Zeichen von Ordnung oder Chaos?  2 Hierzu z.B. HABICHT, 2 Makk, 179 (incl. der Diskussion älterer Sekundärliteratur). 3 Mir ist klar, dass das 2 Makk mit größter Wahrscheinlichkeit in mehreren Schritten entstanden ist. Deswegen werde ich im Folgenden meist vom „Text“ sprechen und nicht vom Autor, dazu mich auf den heute erhaltenen Text in seiner Gesamtheit (aber ohne die einleitenden Briefe) konzentrieren und nicht über mögliche Vorstufen nachdenken. 4 MARKSCHIES, Kirchengeschichte. Eine erweiterte und überarbeitete Fassung der Vorlesungsreihe wird (wohl) im Jahr 2018 als Band im Herder Verlag erscheinen. Ich beziehe mich auf mündlich vorgetragene, zentrale Thesen.

180  Tobias Nicklas Zur Beantwortung meiner Fragen lasse ich die beiden dem Text später angefügten Einleitungsbriefe beiseite und konzentriere mich auf die Vorrede des „Epitomators“ (2 Makk 2,19-32) einerseits und die ab Kapitel 3 einsetzende Darstellung der Geschichte (inklusive der deutenden Worte des Erzählers) andererseits. 5 Dabei stellt sich zudem die spannende Frage, ob und wie konsequent das in der Rede des Epitomators entworfene Programm im folgenden Text auch wirklich durchgeführt wird.

2 Die Vorrede des Epitomators (2 Makk 2,19-32) Bereits die ersten Verse in der Vorrede des Epitomators zeigen: Es ist ein bunter Strauß an Ereignissen, die er sich vorgenommen hat, in seiner Zusammenfassung der fünf Bücher des Jason von Kyrene zu berichten. 6 Viele von diesen könnten in jedem Geschichtsbuch auch heutiger Zeit thematisiert werden: Es geht zunächst um „die Ereignisse um den Makkabäer Judas und seine Brüder, die Reinigung des Höchsten, die Einweihung des Altars sowie die Kriege, die sie gegen Antiochos Epiphanes und seinen Sohn Eupator führten“ (2 Makk 2,1920). 7 Zunächst (mit simplem kai,) neben diese stellt V. 21 jedoch die „den ruhmvoll für die jüdische Lebensweise Kämpfenden“ zuteil gewordenen „Erscheinungen aus dem Himmel“. Dass damit (aus irdischer Perspektive) das Eingreifen Gottes beschrieben wird und dass dieses für die Logik des zu Erzählenden nicht einfach neben den anderen Ereignissen steht, zeigt der folgende Konsekutivsatz. Die Rückeroberung des Landes, der Sieg über die riesige Überzahl der Feinde, die Rückgewinnung des Tempels und die Wiedereinsetzung des Gesetzes ist so als Folge des mit dem Wort evpifanei,a beschriebenen Eingreifens Gottes verstanden. Dabei mag die konkrete Formulierung bewusst gewählt sein – immerhin entsteht so ein Kontrast zwischen Antiochos, der sich als „der Epiphane“ beschreibt, und dem Gott Israels, der (noch ungenannt) sich in Epipha-

 5 Das Schlusswort des Epitomators aus 2 Makk 15,37-39 werde ich nicht extra behandeln, fügt es dem Erbrachten im Grunde nichts Wesentliches hinzu. 6 Ich gehe davon aus, dass der Text wirklich Epitomé eines längeren Geschichtswerks des ansonsten unbekannten Jason von Kyrene ist. Anders ZWICK, Unterhaltung und Nutzen. 7 Übersetzungen von mir. Als Textgrundlage dient die Ausgabe der Göttinger LXX. – Auffallend ist natürlich, dass hier weder Seleukos noch Demetrius genannt werden, deren Regierungszeit das Buch ja auch streift.

Die Idee von „Geschichte“ im 2. Makkabäerbuch  181

nien durchsetzt. 8 Damit ist bereits ein sehr grundlegender Gedanke zum Ausdruck gebracht, der im Text wiederbegegnen wird: Der Gott Israels setzt sich handelnd gegen den durch, der sich in maßloser Selbstüberhebung an die Stelle Gottes setzt. Dies wiederum ist möglich, weil, wie V. 22 betont, „der Herr ihnen in seiner großen Milde (evpieikei,aj) gnädig“ war. Der Erfolg des Handelns von Judas Makkabäus und den Seinen im Kampf für Land, Tempel und Tora ist in dieser Sicht alleine der Gnade und Milde Gottes, des Herrn, zu verdanken, ohne dass dies ihrem Ruhm und ihrer Tapferkeit Abbruch tut. All dies hat natürlich auch Auswirkungen auf unseren zweiten Fragenkomplex: Bereits mit dem in den ersten Versen Gesagten ist es nicht ganz einfach, die Frage nach dem Verhältnis von aktiver Gestaltung und passivem Erleiden von Geschichte zu beantworten. So werden Judas und seine Anhänger als Handelnde und zwar ruhmvoll Kämpfende beschrieben, denen das gelingt, was sie als Ziel sich vorgenommen haben. Dies wiederum ist jedoch nur aufgrund der Gnade Gottes möglich. Wo diese gegeben ist, ist schier Unmögliches, ja Unglaubliches erreichbar, wo sie fehlt, kann auch die größte Überzahl den Gegner nicht bezwingen. Wollte man 2 Makk 2,19-22 ganz wörtlich nehmen, so könnte man meinen, dass es dem Text um die Auseinandersetzung nur ganz weniger Individuen geht: Da steht auf der einen Seite Judas Makkabäus, der noch einmal gegenüber seinen (eigentlich historisch ihm nicht nachstehenden) Brüdern differenziert wird, 9 auf der anderen Seite Antiochos Epiphanes und Antiochos Eupator. Zumindest angedeutet wird jedoch, dass diese eine jeweils größere Gruppe repräsentieren: erstere stehen für die „ruhmvoll für die jüdische Lebensweise Kämpfenden“ (2 Makk 2,21), zweitere für die „Massen der Barbaren“. Der in 2,21 angesprochene VIoudai?smo,j – ich habe das Wort hier mit „jüdische Lebensweise“ wiedergegeben 10 – wiederum signalisiert, dass das Tun  8 So auch (in Andeutung) SCHWARTZ, 2 Macc, 172, sowie ausführlich dieses als Grundkonzept hinter dem Plot des 2 Makk beschreibend SCHMITZ, Auferstehung, 112-132. 9 Dass das 2 Makk sich in erster Linie für Judas interessiert und seine ihm z.T. nachfolgenden Brüder (eventuell aus Kritik an der späteren hasmonäischen Dynastie) deutlich in den Hintergrund treten, wurde in der Sekundärliteratur regelmäßig beobachtet. Vgl. z.B. SIEGERT, Einleitung, 420: „Der Autor ist ein begeisterter Parteigänger des Judas Makkabäus und seines Widerstandskampfes, nicht aber der daraus entsprungenen Hasmonäerdynastie. Judas, der große Krieger, ist sein Held, im Kreise seiner (vom Epitomator sicher schon vernachlässigten) Brüder.“ 10 HABICHT, 2 Makk, 208, übersetzt stattdessen „die jüdische Sache“. Wichtiger ist die Diskussion um die Frage, ob das Wort VIoudai?smo,j für die „jüdische“ oder die „judäische“ Lebensweise steht (mit entsprechenden Konsequenzen für das Verständnis des Wortes VIoudai/oj). Vgl. hierzu (mit Diskussion der Sekundärliteratur) SCHNOCKS, Judäer, der zu dem Schluss kommt (127): „Insgesamt erweist sich die Identitätskonstruktion also als deutlich von religiösen Aspekten

182  Tobias Nicklas von Judas und seinen Brüdern im Dienst aller „Juden“ steht, für die es ihnen gelingt, „das ganze Land zurückzuerobern und die Massen der Barbaren zu verjagen, auch den auf der ganzen bewohnten Welt hochberühmten Tempel wieder zu gewinnen, die Stadt zu befreien und die Gesetze, die man gerade abschaffen wollte, wieder in Kraft zu setzen“ (2 Makk 2,21-22). Dabei scheint ein geradezu in konzentrischen Kreisen beschreibbares Bild der Welt im Hintergrund der Beschreibung zu stehen: Im Mittelpunkt steht der „Tempel des Höchsten“ mit seinem Altar (2 Makk 2,19), 11 dieser wiederum steht in der Stadt, die es zu befreien gilt – natürlich Jerusalem – (2 Makk 2,22) und in dem Land, das zurückerobert werden muss (2 Makk 2,21) – natürlich Eretz Israel – , er ist jedoch gleichzeitig „in der ganzen bewohnten Welt (oivkome,nh) hochberühmt“ (2 Makk 2,22). Ingesamt verrät die Einleitung aber, dass der folgenden Darstellung jedoch eine recht einfache, ja simple Ordnung der Dinge zugrunde liegt: Letztendlich lebt die „Story“, die es zu erzählen gilt, von einer klaren Opposition: Auf der einen Seite steht der Gott Israels, gleichzeitig der Handlungssouverän, der Judas Makkabäus und seine Brüder (und damit diejenigen, die an ihrer Seite kämpfen) unterstützt, auf der anderen Seite Antiochos Epiphanes und (später) sein Sohn Antiochos Eupator, die in der Einleitung für „Massen von Barbaren“ (2 Makk 2,21) stehen. Auch der Gegenstand, um den gerungen wird, erhält seine Bedeutung von seiner Beziehung zu Gott her: das Heiligtum, die Stadt und die Gesetze (2 Makk 2,21). So einfach dieses Darstellungsprinzip ist, so schwer versteht der Epitomator sein Handwerk. 12 Ausgangspunkt seiner Darstellung nämlich ist eine „Flut von Zahlen“ und eine „Fülle an Material“, die bereits in dem Werk des Jason von Kyrene (wohl jedoch unter dem selben Prinzip) zusammengestellt sei (2 Makk 2,24). Sein eigenes „beschwerliches“, ja ihm „Schlaflosigkeit“ bereitendes Tun (2 Makk 2,26-27) versuche Grundlinien darzustellen und müsse deswegen „straffen“ (2 Makk 2,31). Jasons Darstellung

 durchzogen. Insofern ist – soweit ich sehe durchgängig – eine Übersetzung von VIoudai/oi im zweiten Makkabäerbuch mit ‚Juden‘ gerechtfertigt.“ 11 So auch die entscheidende These von DORAN, Temple Propaganda, auf die auch ZSENGELLÉR, Maccabees, anspielt. 12 Dass wir es hier natürlich mit Rhetorik zu tun haben, ist klar. Dies betont auch DOBBELER, 1/2 Makk, 176: „Das Vorwort des Epitomators 2,19-32 klärt den Leser über das Kommende auf. Dabei steht der Epitomator in guter hellenistischer Tradition. Viele griechische Historiker, so z.B. Diodorus, Thukydides und Lucian versahen ihre Werke mit einem Vorwort … In stereotypen Wendungen beschrieben sie Inhalt, Ziel, Stoffwahl und Quellen ihrer Schrift. Die Fülle des durchzuarbeitenden und neu anzuordnenden Stoffes wurde erwähnt, die Mühseligkeit der Arbeit betont, auf die Erbauung und Unterhaltung des Lesers abgehoben.“

Die Idee von „Geschichte“ im 2. Makkabäerbuch  183

in fünf Bänden solle so in einem einzigen Buch zusammengefasst werden, welches bei unterschiedlichen Lesern Unterschiedliches bewirken wolle: bei den einen „Vergnügen“ (yucagwgi,an), bei anderen möglichste Einfachheit, um seine Inhalte erlernen zu können, bei anderen schließlich „Nutzen“ (2,25; vgl. auch 2,27: „Annehmlichkeit“). 13

3 Der Hauptteil 2 Makk 3,1-15,36 3.1 Theologische Geschichtsschreibung? Inwiefern erfüllt der historische Hauptteil des Textes nun tatsächlich dieses Programm? Natürlich kann ich im Folgenden nicht in der gleichen Weise ins Detail gehen, wie dies im Zusammenhang mit der eben analysierten Vorrede der Fall war. Einige Streiflichter müssen genügen: Dass das Geschichtsbild auch des Hauptteils von 2 Makk zutiefst von der Idee des Handelns Gottes in der Geschichte – oder zumindest in der Geschichte Israels – erfüllt ist, dürfte unbestritten sein, lässt sich der Plot der Gesamterzählung doch im Grunde recht einfach beschreiben: 14 Nach einer Situation tiefen Friedens in der Zeit des Hohenpriesters Onias (2 Makk 3,1), in der Gott alle Angriffe auf Tempel und Heilige Stadt abwehrt, kommt es in der Reform des Jason und Menelaos (2 Makk 4) zu einem Abfall von den bisher überlieferten Gesetzen und damit zu einer Krise des Verhältnisses zu Gott, die sich letztlich in einer Zeit schlimmster Verfolgung erweist. Die Treue wenigstens einiger Glaubender in dieser Verfolgung, die sie bis in den Tod hinein gehen lässt (2 Makk 6,18-7,42), führt dazu, dass Gott sich wieder auf die Seite seines Volkes stellt. Da eine kleine Gruppe um Judas Makkabäus sich in der Zeit der Verfolgung nicht unrein gemacht bzw. wörtlich nicht „befleckt“ hat (2 Makk 5,27), sind sie ideale Protagonisten, 15 um wieder die Kontrolle über den Tempel zu erlangen und die Feinde Gottes zu besiegen. Der Schluss- und Höhepunkt des Erzählten findet sich in der Auseinandersetzung mit Nikanor (2 Makk 14-15), die letztlich noch einmal entscheidende Teile des Plots der Gesamterzählung in nuce in sich

 13 Dass die weiteren Ausführungen, nach denen der Epitomator seine Aufgabe mit der Dekoration eines bereits vom Architekten konzipierten Hauses umschreibt, im Grunde unlogisch sind, betont mit Recht DOBBELER, 1/2 Makk, 176. 14 Vgl. auch die knappen Ausführungen bei NICKLAS, Makkabaion II, 308-309. 15 Von einer besonderen Erwählung des Judas ist jedoch nicht die Rede.

184  Tobias Nicklas birgt. 16 Nach einer Zeit gelungener Kooperation zwischen Nikanor und Judas stellt sich Nikanor gegen Judas. In einer Schlacht, in der die Leute des Judas in der Minderzahl sind, gelingt diesen auf die Fürbitte des Propheten Jeremia (2 Makk 15,14-15), welcher Judas ein „heiliges Schwert“ überreicht, durch Gottes Hilfe ein vernichtender Sieg, bei dem Gott, epiphan werdend (2 Makk 15,34), sich gegen diejenigen durchsetzt, welche sich gegen ihn überheben (z.B. 2 Makk 15,1-5.8). 17 Betrachten wir den Gesamttext des 2 Makk jedoch genauer, finden sich allerdings auch Passagen, die sich sehr weit von diesem Grundkonzept lösen. Setzt der Text also sein eigenes Programm wirklich konsequent um? So entsteht zumindest an manchen Stellen der Eindruck, dass nicht jede Entwicklung der Erzählung vom Handeln oder aber auch der Vorhersicht Gottes geprägt sei: Bereits in Kapitel 3 lesen wir von Entwicklungen, die allein auf persönlichem Streit (2 Makk 3,4), Intrigen (2 Makk 3,5-6) und offenbarer Geldgier (2 Makk 3,6-8) basieren. Die Frage, wie Gott es denn zulassen könne, dass es trotz der Frömmigkeit des Hohenpriesters Onias und trotz der Tatsache, dass die Gesetze „sehr genau beachtet“ werden (2 Makk 3,1), überhaupt zu solchen Entwicklungen kommen kann, welche zur (letztlich erfolglosen) Tempelinspektion des Heliodor führen, wird nicht gestellt. Warum muss es überhaupt erst zu einem solch dramatischen Akt kommen, der den Hohenpriester in höchste Furcht und Bedrängnis bringt (2 Makk 3,16-17) und verzweifelte Aktionen der Bevölkerung (wohl) Jerusalems erfordert (2 Makk 3,18-22)? All dies scheint den Text nicht zu interessieren – viel mehr scheint es, wie bereits in der Vorrede des Epitomators angedeutet, um die machtvolle evpifa,neia Gottes, des „Herrschers der Luftgeister“ (2 Makk 3,24), 18 zu gehen, die Heliodor, den Kanzler des Antiochos, zum Zeugen der Machttaten Gottes (2 Makk 3,36-40) werden lässt. Noch weniger ist in den in Kapitel 4 erzählten Ereignissen vom Handeln Gottes die Rede: Die sich auch nach dem Eingreifen Gottes offenbar ungehindert fortsetzenden Intrigen gegen Onias führen dazu, dass dieser abgesetzt und durch seinen Bruder Jason ersetzt werden kann. Dieser erschleicht sich die Position durch Einsatz entsprechender Geldmittel (2 Makk 3,7-10), verliert dann aber selbst wieder die Hohepriesterwürde an Menelaos, welcher nun nicht

 16 Eine ausführliche narrativ orientierte Deutung von 2 Makk 14-15 habe ich vorgelegt in NICKLAS, Fratze. 17 Besonders eindringlich macht dies die ab 2 Makk 15,12 erzählte Vision des Judas von der Fürbitte durch Onias und Jeremia deutlich. 18 Damit ist wohl angedeutet, dass Gott hier durch Engel „epiphan“ wird, als deren Herrscher ihn uns der Text vorstellt. So auch SCHWARTZ, 2 Macc, 201.

Die Idee von „Geschichte“ im 2. Makkabäerbuch  185

einmal mehr aus zadokidischem Hause stammt (2 Makk 4,23-25). Warum der Gott Israels dies zulässt, ja sogar die Handlungen des Jason, die zu einer „Blüte griechischer Lebensart“ (2 Makk 4,13) führen, 19 nicht hindert, sondern es offenbar für alle zu einer „schweren Notlage“ (2 Makk 4,16) kommen lässt, die mit dem Frevel gegen göttliche Gebote (2 Makk 4,17) begründet ist, liegt außerhalb des Fragehorizonts. Inkonsequent erscheint auch, dass 2 Makk 4,3234 zwar von der Ermordung des Onias spricht, diese aber alleine auf Intrigen des Menelaos und des in 4,31 erstmals knapp eingeführten Andronikos zurückführt: Warum Gott weder zum Schutz des Onias eingreift, welcher in 3,1 noch geradezu als Ideal der Frömmigkeit gezeichnet wurde, noch irgendeine andere theologische Deutung dieses Geschehens geboten wird, bleibt unklar. Auch die Tatsache, dass Andronikus wegen dieser Tat und hingerichtet wird (2 Makk 4,38) – und zwar, weil Antiochos die Tat als Frevel beurteilt (2 Makk 4,37) – , löst dieses Problem nicht wirklich. Immerhin scheint – deutlich später – die Vision aus 2 Makk 15,12-15 vorauszusetzen, dass Onias auch nach seinem Tode noch, ganz leiblich beschreibbar, Fürbitte für Judas und die Seinen einlegen kann. 20 Nach längerer Pause ist erst mit dem Beginn des 5. Kapitels wieder von einer „Epiphanie“ (2 Makk 5,4) die Rede. Diese aber scheint wenigstens nichts Positives zu bewirken: 21 Jason versucht mit tausend Mann Jerusalem einzunehmen, richtet ein Blutbad unter der Bevölkerung an (2 Makk 5,6), muss aber schließlich fliehen und kommt (auf unklar bleibende Weise) zu Tode (2 Makk 5,9). 22 Es folgt ein umso größeres Morden durch Antiochos, dem es nun sogar gelingt, den „heiligsten Tempel der ganzen Erde zu betreten“ (2 Makk 5,15) und (vorläufig ungestraft) Tempelraub zu begehen (2 Makk 5,16). Erst jetzt kommt es zu einer theologischen Erklärung, wie all dies möglich ist:  19 Ganz deutlich ist hier „Hellenismos“ dem „Iudaismos“ entgegen gestellt. 20 Ob man deswegen von einer „Auferweckung des Onias“ sprechen kann und wie dieses jenseitige Dasein des Onias beschreibbar ist, muss offen bleiben. Auch NICKELSBURG, Resurrection, 119-138, stellt diese Frage in seiner ansonsten ausgezeichneten Diskussion von 2 Makk nicht. 21 Vgl. hierzu auch SCHMITZ, Auferstehung, 121: „Bei dieser Epiphanie bleibt offen, wer der Sender und wer der genaue Empfänger dieser Epiphanie ist. Auch die Stadt, in der die Epiphanie stattfindet, wird nicht explizit mit ihrem Namen benannt. Zudem bleibt bei dieser Epiphanie offen, ob es sich bei diesem ‚ambiguous oracle‘ um eine ‚gute Epiphanie‘ … handelt, weil derartige Zeichen meist als Ankündigung von Unglück verstanden werden. … Die Funktion dieser Epiphanie ist umstritten.“ 22 Zur Frage, warum sich Jason ausgerechnet auf den Weg nach Sparta macht und was mit der Rede von der „Verwandtschaft zu den Spartanern“ gemeint sein könnte, vgl. die Überlegungen bei SCHWARTZ, 2 Macc, 256-257, sowie deutlich ausführlicher GRUEN, Jewish-Spartan Affiliation.

186  Tobias Nicklas In seinem Übermut sah Antiochus nicht ein, dass der Herrscher (d.h. Gott) nur für eine kurze Zeit erzürnt war, weil die Einwohner der Stadt gesündigt hatten, und deswegen nicht auf den Ort achtete. 18 Hätten sich die damals nicht in viele Sünden verstrickt, dann wäre auch diesem Verleiteten auf der Stelle seine Dreistigkeit durch Peitschenhiebe ausgetrieben worden, ähnlich wie dem Heliodor, der von König Seleukos zur Untersuchung der Schatzkammer ausgeschickt worden war. 19 Aber der Herr hat nicht wegen des Ortes das Volk erwählt, sondern wegen des Volkes den Ort. 20 Deswegen litt auch der Ort selbst unter den Unglücksschlägen, die das Volk trafen, wie er später Anteil hatte an seinen Wohltaten. Und der (Ort), der verlassen war, als der Allherrscher zürnte, wurde in aller Pracht wiederhergestellt, als der große Herrscher sich versöhnen ließ (2 Makk 5,17-20).

Dass das Volk nun auf griechische Weise lebt, führt zu den beschriebenen „Unglücksschlägen“, die nun auch den Tempel treffen. 23 2 Makk 8,5 immerhin erklärt die beginnenden Erfolge des Judas schließlich grundsätzlich mit dem Gedanken, dass „der Zorn des Herrn sich in Erbarmen gewandelt“ hat (vgl. auch 2 Makk 8,29). Dieser Gedanke steht im Grunde deutend hinter dem gesamten zweiten Teil des Buches. Explizit wird dies besonders in Kapitel 9, wo erzählt wird, dass Antiochos Epiphanes einen Tod erleidet, welcher an das gemahnt, was er anderen angetan hat (2 Makk 9,6.28), und bei dem er geradezu zum Opfer der Ironie des Textes wird. 24 Gleichzeitig wird dieser Tod wiederum zu einer Form der Epiphanie göttlicher Macht (2 Makk 9,8). 25 Doch selbst im zweiten Teil kann diese Erklärung nicht vollständig befriedigen, reiht Judas zwar Sieg an Sieg, wird aber die Frage, wie es den Feinden Israels auch nach der Phase, in der Gott Israel wieder sein Erbarmen zuwendet, gelingen kann, trotzdem noch immer feindlich zu handeln und dabei auch Unschuldige zu töten, weder gestellt, noch gar geklärt: So ist in Kapitel 10 von erneuten Intrigen am seleukidischen Hof die Rede (2 Makk 10,12-13), lesen wir von Angriffen eines Gorgias, des Statthalters von Idumäa (2 Makk 10,14), Attacken der Idumäer (2 Makk 10,15), des Timotheos (2 Makk 10,24) u.a., die trotz der göttlichen Zuwendung zu Israel erneute Kriegshandlungen des Judas notwendig machen, welche wenigstens im Falle des Timotheos durch erneute himmlische „Erscheinungen“ entschieden werden. An anderen Stellen wiederum scheint sich Gott so weit zurückzuziehen, dass sich der Text geradezu wie eine „Profangeschichte“ liest, die sich alleine für den Ablauf von  23 Im Grunde setzt der hier formulierte Gedanke eine Kombination zweier Linien alttestamentlicher Schechina-Theologie voraus, einerseits die Idee, dass Gott unter seinem Volk Wohnung genommen hat, und andererseits die Vorstellung, dass er den Tempel zu Jerusalem bewohnt. Beides steht hier in Zusammenhang und wird mit der Erwählung des Volkes begründet. 24 Hierzu im Detail NICKLAS, Irony, 106-108. 25 Eine ausführliche narrative Deutung dieser Szene habe ich vorgelegt in NICKLAS, Historiker.

Die Idee von „Geschichte“ im 2. Makkabäerbuch  187

Friedensverhandlungen und die Inhalte von Vertragsangelegenheiten (vgl. z.B. 2 Makk 11,15-37; 14,20-22) interessiert. Dass (im Grunde vergleichbar dem Eleazar aus 2 Makk 6,18-31) auch nach der erfolgten Zuwendung Gottes zu seinem Volk in 2 Makk 14,37-46 noch vom Tod des Razis erzählt werden muss, widerspricht eigentlich dem eigenen Konzept (und v.a. der Aussage aus 2 Makk 8,5), das erst dann wieder greift, als es Nikanor nicht gelingt, die Männer des Judas am Sabbat zu überfallen (2 Makk 15,1-5). So entsteht der Eindruck, dass sich Gottes Handeln auf einige entscheidende Punkte konzentriert, in denen er „epiphan“ wird, 26 dass er aber v.a. das Handeln seiner Gegner erst dann beeinflusst, wenn es zu einer entscheidenden Konfrontation kommt, aus der dann Konsequenzen gezogen werden müssen. Ein typisches Beispiel für viele ist die Reaktion des Lysias nach einer Niederlage gegen die Leute des Judas. In 2 Makk 11,13-14 lesen wir: „Da Lysias jedoch nicht ohne Verstand war und über die erlittene Niederlage nachdachte, begriff er, dass die Hebräer unbesiegbar waren, weil der mächtige Gott ihr Bundesgenosse war. Darum sandte er (Unterhändler) aus, die auf einen Friedensvertrag drängen und jeder annehmbaren Bedingung zustimmen sollten; er ließ sagen, er wolle auch den König durch Überredung veranlassen, mit ihnen Freundschaft zu schließen.“ Gottes epiphanes Handeln in der Schlacht bringt den seleukidischen Kanzler zur Einsicht. Was nun folgt, ist im Grunde „Profangeschichte“, der Text diskutiert Vertragsangelegenheiten zwischen Kriegsparteien.

3.2 Individuum oder Gruppe? Die Frage nach dem Interesse, das der Text dem Individuum im Verhältnis zur Gruppe entgegenbringt, ist nicht mit einem Satz zu beantworten. Die Antwort hat zwei Aspekte. Einerseits scheint der Text „Geschichte“ als letztlich vom Handeln nur ganz weniger Individuen bestimmt zu verstehen, deren Verhalten er in unterschiedlichen Passagen auch sehr konkret in Szene setzt. Dabei ist nicht nur an Judas Makkabäus, den „Helden“ des zweiten Teils des Buches, zu denken, sondern m.E. auch und vor allem die Tatsache, dass im ersten Teil zunächst das Fehlverhalten einiger Einzelfiguren ein Fehlverhalten in ihrem  26 SCHMITZ, Auferstehung, 130: „Alle Epiphanien werden mit Blick auf ihre Herkunft in unterschiedlichen Graden explizit auf Gott zurückgeführt. Eine Ausnahme bildet nur die zweite Epiphanie (2Makk 5,1-4), deren Herkunft nicht deutlich wird,“ sowie ebd., 131: „Mit der Epiphanieschilderung wird somit ein Weg erzählt, mit dem Gott sich – gemäß der Tradition – als ein in der Geschichte handelnder Gott erweist, ohne aber in den Lauf der Welt anthropomorph einzugreifen.“

188  Tobias Nicklas Umfang nicht genau bestimmter, jedoch offenbar größerer Teile des Volks verursacht: Während die Frömmigkeit des Onias mit 2 Makk 3,1 gleichsam auf die Lebenshaltung der ganzen Stadt ausstrahlt, führt der Wechsel zu Jason und anschließend Menelaos den Wechsel zur „griechischen Lebensweise“ (2 Makk 4,13) herbei, welcher wiederum dazu führt, dass sich Gott von seinem Volk abwendet und den Tempel nicht mehr vor der Schändung durch Antiochos bewahrt (2 Makk 5,17-20). Gleichzeitig macht sich jedoch auch der Umschwung (wenigstens narrativ) am Verhalten einzelner fest: Die Treue der Märtyrer – zunächst des Eleazar (2 Makk 6,18) und dann (noch mehr) der sieben Brüder und ihrer Mutter (2 Makk 7) – ist es, die Gott wieder auf die Seite seines Volkes bringt und so die Wende innerhalb der Erzählung bewirkt (2 Makk 7,33.38; 8,5). 27 Und doch gilt dieses Interesse nur in einigen Fällen, ist der Text doch in einigen Fällen bemerkenswert inkonsequent: Dass Onias (2 Makk 4,34) oder die Vertreter des Hohen Rats, die in Tyros in Sachen ihres Volkes vor dem König auftreten (2 Makk 4,47), aber auch zwei Frauen, die ihre Söhne beschneiden lassen (2 Makk 6,10), ermordet werden, dient, um den Frevel einiger der negativen Figuren der Erzählung zu illustrieren. Ein wirkliches theologisches Interesse daran, warum dies auch weiterhin gegenüber als gerecht charakterisierten Figuren geschehen kann, besteht jedoch nicht. Noch deutlicher wird dies bei den Opfern der in Kapitel 5 erzählten Strafaktion des Antiochos, welche (noch dazu) auf ein von Jason angerichtetes Blutbad „unter Blutsverwandten“ (2 Makk 5,6) folgt. Es scheint so, als würden Opfer einer ersten Aggression mit der Aktion des Antiochos noch einmal „bestraft“. Hier interessiert der Text sich tatsächlich nur mehr für das, was 2 Makk 2,24 noch als „Flut von Zahlen“ beschrieben hat: „In nur drei Tagen kamen achtzigtausend um, vierzigtausend durch tätliche Gewalt, ebenso viele aber, wie man abgeschlachtet hatte, wurden (in die Sklaverei) verkauft“ (2 Makk 5,14). 28 Die Deutung, dass all dies der Erziehung des Volkes dienen solle, ist hier eigentlich nicht nachvollziehbar (2 Makk 6,12) 29 – sie zeigt viel mehr, dass der Text kein Interesse an den so beschriebenen Einzelschicksalen hat, sondern es ihm alleine um das Kollektiv des Volkes geht. Diese Folgerung legt auch das schon  27 Hierzu ganz grundlegend VAN HENTEN, Maccabean Martyrs; sowie RAJAK, Dying. 28 Ähnlich, wenn auch in den Zahlen weniger dramatisch, ist 2 Makk 12,4, wo von der Ermordung von zweihundert Juden in Joppe die Rede ist. 29 Auch die Tatsache, dass 2 Makk 8,28 davon spricht, dass die Beute aus der ersten Schlacht gegen Nikanor den „Verstümmelten, Witwen und Waisen“ zugedacht wird, dient natürlich der Charakterisierung des Judas und seiner Kämpfer; dies als „gerechten Ausgleich“ für das Erlittene zu betrachten, ist natürlich naiv.

Die Idee von „Geschichte“ im 2. Makkabäerbuch  189

erwähnte 2 Makk 5,19-20 nahe: „Aber der Herr hat nicht wegen des Ortes das Volk erwählt, sondern wegen des Volkes den Ort. 20 Deswegen litt auch der Ort selbst unter den Unglücksschlägen, die das Volk trafen, wie er später Anteil hatte an seinen Wohltaten.“ Für das Volk als Kollektiv und den Tempel als Wohnort Gottes gibt es eine Zukunft, für den Einzelnen ist diese Perspektive bestenfalls jenseitig, in der den Treuen zugesprochenen Auferweckung zum Leben (2 Makk 7,9.11.14.23) 30 möglich. Dies zeigt sich im Grunde auch in den vielen Beschreibungen von Schlachten: Judas und die Seinen eilen von Sieg zu Sieg, sorgsam werden die z.T. vollkommen unrealistischen Zahlen der auf der Gegenseite Gefallenen notiert (vgl. 2 Makk 8,24.30; 10,17.23.31; 11,11; 12,10.23; 13,15 u.a.), 31 welche offenbar nur im Kollektiv des Bösen wahrgenommen sind. Gleichzeitig entsteht der Eindruck, Judas habe keinen einzigen Mann verloren, bzw. wird die Frage nach Verlusten derer um Judas meist nicht gestellt. Nur eine einzige, für unsere Frage jedoch spannende Szene durchbricht dieses Bild: In der Schlacht gegen Gorgias von Idumäa wird (ausnahmsweise!) explizit notiert, dass „wenige Juden fielen“ (2 Makk 12,34). Auf diese Notiz wird wenig später reagiert: „Am folgenden Tag kamen die Leute des Judas, um die Leichen der Gefallenen zu überführen – es war inzwischen höchste Zeit geworden – und sie inmitten ihrer Verwandten in den Familiengräbern zu bestatten. Da entdeckten bei jedem der Toten unter seinen Unterkleidern Amulette der Götterbilder von Jamnia, 32 obwohl das Gesetz dies den Juden verbietet. Da wurde allen klar, dass die (Männer) aus diesem Grunde gefallen waren, und sie priesen nun alle das Wirken des Herrn, des gerechten Richters, der das Verborgene ans Licht bringt.“ (2 Makk 12,39-42). Wenigstens hier also interessiert sich unser Text explizit für die auf der Seite des Judas in der Schlacht Gefallenen. Ihr Tod wird im Grunde durch ein Wunder erklärt und wenigstens implizit das Handeln Gottes auch an diesen Individuen vorausgesetzt: Ihr Übertreten des Gesetzes, ihre verborgene Hinwendung zu Götzenbildern, die sie eigentlich schützen sollten, führte zu ihrem Tod. Da das Handeln einzelner jedoch Auswirkungen auf das gesamte Kollektiv hat, muss im Folgenden (offenbar) das gesamte Heer des Judas ent 30 Auch die Aussage aus 2 Makk 7,6, dass der Herr „Erbarmen“ haben werde, macht nur Sinn, wenn es sich um ein über den Tod hinaus reichendes Erbarmen handelt. – Zur Theologie der Auferstehung in 2 Makk (sowie den damit verbundenen Körperkonzepten) vgl. detailliert SCHMITZ, Auferstehung und Epiphanie. 31 SIEGERT, Einleitung, 418 schreibt: „Zählt man die von 5,14 bis 15,25 gemachten Angaben zusammen, so wären es 339.400, nicht gezählt die ‚vielen‘ von 5,26 und das Blutbad einer ganzen Stadt in 12,16. Da hilft selbst das sonst übliche Teilen durch 10 nicht mehr.“ 32 Es ist nicht ganz eindeutig, ob mit dem Terminus i`erw,mata Amulette gemeint sein müssen. Vgl. hierzu die ausführliche Diskussion bei GOLDSTEIN, 2 Macc, 448-449.

190  Tobias Nicklas sühnt werden: Judas „veranstaltete auch eine Sammlung, an der sich Mann für Mann beteiligte, und schickte etwa zweitausend Silberdrachmen nach Jerusalem, damit man dort ein Sündopfer darbringe“ (2 Makk 12,43).

3.3 Der Mensch – handelnd oder erleidend? Daraus aber ergeben sich auch Hinweise auf die Frage, inwiefern der Mensch als ein Wesen angesehen wird, das durch sein aktives Handeln die Weltgeschichte ändert, oder eines, das unter den Mächten des Schicksals bzw. eines zürnenden oder wohlmeinenden Gottes leidet und an sie gebunden ist. Dominant ist, soweit ich sehe, zunächst die zweite Dimension: Die großen Linien der Erzählung hängen daran, ob Gott Israel wohlgesonnen ist oder ihm zürnt, ja es in seinem Zorn „erziehen“ will (2 Makk 6,12), oder ob er seinen Zorn zum Stehen kommen lässt (2 Makk 7,38) und in Erbarmen wandelt (2 Makk 8,5). Ab dem Moment, wo Gott erbarmungsvoll auf der Seite der Kämpfer des Judas steht, haben, wie der Text nicht müde wird zu betonen, die Feinde auch dann keine Chance, wenn sie in erdrückender Übermacht anrücken. In Zeiten des Gotteszornes wiederum entfällt Gottes Schutz – und auch Unschuldige sind dem Wüten der Feinde ausgeliefert. Und doch ist das nicht die einzige Seite der Medaille: Für 2 Makk kann die Aktivität einzelner Menschen die gesamte Geschichte verändern, weil sie die Haltung Gottes beeinflusst. Das Martyrium einiger weniger lässt den „Zorn des Allherrschers zum Stehen kommen“ (2 Makk 7,38), der Götzendienst auch nur einiger im Heer muss gesühnt werden, weil sonst die Gefahr bestünde, dass Gott sich wieder abwendet (2 Makk 12,43). Solange die Haltung Gottes sich jedoch gegen eine Gruppe gewandt hat, ist das Individuum wie auch die Gruppe dem daraus Folgenden ausgeliefert. Der entscheidende Freiraum, der bleibt, besteht letztlich weniger in der Entscheidung zwischen Kampf und Erleiden von Unterdrückung, sondern in der Entscheidung, die Gebote Gottes zu halten oder sie nicht zu halten, auch gegen Widerstände auf „jüdische Weise“ zu leben oder nicht. Dabei wird dem Menschen offenbar grundsätzlich zugestanden, diese halten zu können, wenn er dem richtigen Vorbild – wie in 2 Makk 3,1 dem Onias – folgt. 33 Ein schlechtes Vorbild bzw. ein schlechter Hoherpriester wie z.B. Jason kann durch seine eigene Fehlhaltung das ganze Volk (oder große Teile) zur Abwendung von der „jüdischen Lebensweise“ bringen (2 Makk 4,13). Während Antiochos in maßloser  33 Daraus folgt z.B. ein grundsätzlich optimistischeres Menschenbild, als es etwa Paulus im Römerbrief offenbart.

Die Idee von „Geschichte“ im 2. Makkabäerbuch  191

Selbstüberhebung (vgl. v.a. 2 Makk 9,8) als einer, der sich gegen den wahrhaft „epiphanen Gott“ auflehnt, zum Scheitern verurteilt ist, wird Nikanor wenigstens in den Kapiteln 14-15 zur geradezu tragischen Figur. 34 Obwohl er Judas entgegen seiner ursprünglichen Anweisungen verschont, ja ihm „herzlich zugetan“ ist (2 Makk 14,24), muss er sich wegen der Intrigen des Alkimos und unter dem Zwang des Königs doch gegen Judas stellen, erhebt sich in diesen Umständen gegen Gott (2 Makk 14,33) und muss damit natürlich scheitern, er stirbt in der Schlacht. Die Art, wie mit seinem Leichnam verfahren wird, wird als Zeichen gerechter Strafe gedeutet: Dann zeigte er [Judas] den Kopf des besudelten Nikanor und die Hand des Lästerers, die dieser prahlend gegen das heilige Haus des Allherrschers ausgestreckt hatte. 33 Die Zunge des Frevlers Nikanor ließ er herausschneiden, zerstückeln und den Vögeln zum Fraß vorwerfen; den Arm ließ er gegenüber des Tempel aufhängen als Zeichen des bestraften Wahnsinns (2 Makk 15,32-33).

3.4 Lokalgeschichte oder Weltperspektive? Nur auf den ersten Blick entsteht der Eindruck, dass das 2. Makkabäerbuch einen Aspekt der Geschichte einer kleinen Teilprovinz des seleukidischen Großreiches in der Zeit zwischen der Regierung von Seleukos IV. Philopator und Demetrius I. Soter beschreibt. So sehr 2 Makk jedoch den Tempel zu Jerusalem ganz offensichtlich als Zentrum seiner Welt versteht, dazu die Heilige Stadt und das (in seinem konkreten Umfang nicht näher beschriebene) „Land“ im Mittelpunkt des Berichteten stehen und so sehr er sich auch für Ereignisse an konkreten Orten dieses Landes wie Bethsur (2 Makk 11,5; 13,19), den Garizim (2 Makk 5,23; 6,2), Jafo/Joppe (2 Makk 4,21; 12,3-7), Modein (2 Makk 13,14), Skythopolis (2 Makk 12,29-30) und anderen, darunter auch so einem unbedeutenden Flecken wie dem ansonsten unbekannten Dorf Dessau (2 Makk 14,16), interessiert, so wenig möchte seine Erzählung „Lokalgeschichte“ sein. Das liegt nicht einfach nur daran, dass Teile der Erzählung auch in Antiochien am Orontes (2 Makk 4,33; 5,21; 8,35 u.a.), in Ägypten (2 Makk 5,1.9.11 u.a.), Koilesyrien (2 Makk 3,5.8; 4,4 u.a.) oder Persepolis (2 Makk 9,1-2) spielen, dass uns Römer (2 Makk 4,11; 8,10.36; 11,34), Spartaner (2 Makk 5,9), Thraker (2 Makk 12,35) oder Athener begegnen (2 Makk 6,1), sondern daran, dass die Handlung auch als Auseinandersetzung zwischen „jüdischer Lebensweise“ (VIoudai?smo,j; vgl. besonders wichtig 2 Makk 8,1; dann aber auch 2 Makk 14,38) und  34 Hierzu ausführlich NICKLAS, Fratze.

192  Tobias Nicklas „griechischer Lebensweise“ ( `Ellhnismo,j; vgl. 2 Makk 4,10.13, 6,9; 11,24; vgl. auch 2 Makk 6,25: avllofulismo,j) inszeniert ist, 35 in der der Gott Israels gegen diejenigen „epiphan“ Stellung nimmt, die sich gegen die von ihm gewollte „jüdische Lebensweise“ richten. Besonders deutlich wird diese universale Perspektive in den Kapiteln 14-15, die nicht nur als abschließender Kampf des Judas gegen Nikanor und seine Truppen gezeichnet, sondern als „Überfall der Völker“ (2 Makk 14,15: th.n evpi,qesin tw/n evqnw/n) bzw. „Angriff der Völker“ (2 Makk 15,8: th.n tw/n evqnw/n e;fodon) auf das Volk, das sich Gott erwählt hat (2 Makk 5,19), inszeniert werden. Lokale Ereignisse werden so in einen universalen Horizont gestellt. Und wenn das Schicksal der Märtyrerbrüder von Antiochia einerseits auf die Schöpfermacht Gottes (2 Makk 7,28) und andererseits auf das Gericht Gottes verweist (2 Makk 7,35.37), das für Antiochos bereits wenig später sehr konkret Wirklichkeit wird (2 Makk 9), dann erzählt 2 Makk weder Lokal- noch einfach Zeitgeschichte, sondern spannt seine „Story“ in die Geschichte der Welt zwischen der Schöpfung Gottes und dem Endgericht ein. 36

3.5 Ordnung oder Chaos? So sehr schließlich die Vorrede dazu beiträgt, eine deutliche Ordnung in die Gesamtstory zu bringen bzw. diese hinter ihr zu erkennen, so sehr bleibt der Text verliebt in Details, die für das Gesamtkonzept vollkommen überflüssig erscheinen: Die Information, dass die aus Jerusalem gesandten 300 Silberdrachmen für die Heraklesopfer oder den Bau von Dreiruderern verwendet werden (2 Makk 4,18-19), macht immerhin deutlich, dass das Geld nicht zum Opfer an Fremdgottheiten eingesetzt wurde. vollkommen überflüssig aber scheinen andere Details: 2 Makk 4,40 führt als Anführer der 3000 des Lysimachos einen gewissen Auranos an, einen „Mann, dessen Alter nicht geringer war als sein Wahnsinn“, lässt diese Figur dann aber direkt wieder

 35 Dass dies tatsächlich „Inszenierung“ ist, die der tatsächlichen Realität, in der es keine chemisch reine Form keiner der beiden Größen gegeben haben dürfte, wurde mit Recht immer wieder betont. Der Text konstruiert so vielmehr eine Grenzlinie, die von vielen seiner Zeitgenossen so nicht gesehen worden sein dürfte. Weiterführend hierzu z.B. GRUEN, Hellenism and Judaism, sowie WRIGHT, Hellenization. 36 Die Rede von der Schöpfung Gottes in 2 Makk 7,28 wurde (v.a. im Hinblick auf die Frage, ob der Text eine Creatio ex nihilo voraussetze) immer wieder diskutiert. Vgl. v.a. den gewichtigen Beitrag von SCHMITZ, Geschaffen, die jedoch nicht so weit geht, Schöpfungstheologie und Geschichtsbild des Textes in Bezug zu setzen.

Die Idee von „Geschichte“ im 2. Makkabäerbuch  193

fallen. 37 Kurz darauf lesen wir von einer Szene, in der Ptolemaios, der eben als „Sohn des Dorymenes“ eingeführt wurde, den König „in einer Säulenhalle“ beiseite nimmt, „als wolle er ihm etwas Abkühlung verschaffen“ (2 Makk 4,46), und ihn dabei überredet, die Vertreter des Hohen Rats unschuldig zum Tode zu verurteilen. Diese Details überraschen in Anbetracht der sonstigen Knappheit der Szene. 2 Makk 8,32 erzählt vom Tod des Reiterführers des Timotheos, 8,33 feiert die Verbrennung eines gewissen Kallisthenes als „verdienten Lohn seiner Schändlichkeit“, ohne dass damit irgend ein Fortschritt für den Plot erkennbar wäre – stattdessen scheint der Text sich an für den weiteren Fortgang kaum entscheidenden Detailerfolgen des Judas geradezu zu „berauschen“. 38 In 9,30 wiederum lesen wir von einem Philippus, der die Leiche des Antiochos nach Antiochia überführt, dann aber nach Ägypten an den Hof Ptolemaios Philometors überläuft, ohne dass dies für den weiteren Fortgang eine Rolle spielen würde, 13,5-6 beschreibt genau die Vorrichtung, mit der Menelaos hingerichtet wird, 39 13,15 erwähnt den Tod des Leitelefanten im Heer des Eupator, 13,21 (ebenfalls ohne weiteren Bezug auf den Plot) den Verrat eines ansonsten nicht mehr begegnenden Rodokos, 14,25 schließlich spricht, ohne dass dies irgendwie wieder aufgenommen würde, von einer Heirat des Judas. Man könnte noch viele solcher ganz offensichtlich nebensächlicher, bestenfalls dekorativer Details erwähnen, bei denen nicht immer klar ist, ob sie sich in erster Linie einer inkonsequenten (oder vielleicht nicht immer ganz geschickten) Zusammenfassung eines umfangreicheren Werkes verdanken oder dem Versuch, bildhaft zu schreiben und gelehrt zu wirken. 40 Wie auch immer: Neben dem Versuch eine zusammenhängende, einem einfachen Plot folgende Erzählung zu schaffen, bricht immer wieder ein deutlich erkennbares Interesse an alleine dekorativen Einzelheiten (vgl. 2 Makk 2,29) hervor, die dem Leser zwar Kompetenz und Detailwissen des Verfassers signalisieren, m.E. gleichzeitig aber das eigentliche Erzählziel schwächen: Ist es nicht inkonsequent, eine Erzählung zu verfassen, der es um Gott als in der Geschichte  37 Vgl. hierzu auch die etwas ratlosen Überlegungen bei SCHWARTZ, 2 Macc, 241. 38 Hier ist allerdings überhaupt zu überlegen, die genannten Passagen wirklich am ursprünglichen Ort stehen. 39 In diesem Fall gibt immerhin 13,7-8 eine Erklärung an, die in der üblichen Linie der Gerechtigkeitsvorstellung des 2 Makk liegt, bei der die Strafe dem Vergehen entsprechen muss. Den Sünder ereilt ein Schicksal, das er anderen bereitet hat: „Auf diese Weise geschah es, dass der Gesetzesbrecher Menelaos starb und dabei nicht einmal die Erde erreichte. Damit geschah ihm nur recht; denn er hatte viele Sünden um den Altar begangen, dessen Feuer und Asche heilig sind. Nun fand er in Asche den Tod.“ – Hierzu weiterführend EGO, God’s Justice. 40 Ich denke, dass – von Fall zu Fall unterschiedlich – beides zutreffen mag.

194  Tobias Nicklas epiphan werdenden Handlungssouverän an der Seite seiner Treuen geht und sich dabei gleichzeitig für den Bau seleukidischer Kriegsschiffe (2 Makk 4,18) oder die Beschreibung ausgeklügelter Hinrichtungsmaschinerien (2 Makk 13,56) zu interessieren?

4 Fazit So zeigt sich, dass das in der Vorrede des Epitomators entworfene Programm der Geschichtsdarstellung zwar in großen Zügen, jedoch nicht in letzter Konsequenz durchgeführt ist. 2 Makk bietet zwar grundsätzlich theologische Geschichtsschreibung, doch ist kaum jeder Zug der Darstellung wirklich theologisch durchdacht. Zwar erzählt der Text von einem Gott, der sich in entscheidenden Szenen immer wieder als der (im Gegensatz zu seinen Widersachern) eigentlich „Epiphane“ erweist, gleichzeitig erzählen ganze Kapitel von Ereignissen, die theologisch nicht bzw. kaum reflektiert werden, ja in Einzelfällen gar dem theologischen Gesamtkonzept nicht voll eingeordnet werden können, ja ihm widersprechen. Dies hat wenigstens in manchen Fällen auch damit zu tun, dass der Text sich immer wieder an Details aufhält, die für den großen Plot kaum interessant sind. Dem geht einher das Bild des Menschen, der in Einzelfällen als Individuum interessiert, dessen Schicksal zwar von Gottes Haltung zu Israel abhängig ist, dessen Verhalten aber Gottes Haltung beeinflussen kann. Vor allem ist jedoch von Kollektiven die Rede: Das Einzelschicksal tritt so weit hinter dem Schicksal des Volkes zurück, dass wenigstens in vielen Fällen die Ungerechtigkeit, die dem Einzelnen widerfährt, nicht reflektiert ist. Nur im Falle der sieben Brüder und ihrer Mutter öffnet sich mit der Perspektive leiblicher Auferweckung die Möglichkeit, dass auch diese Ungerechtigkeit ausgeglichen werden kann. 41

 41 Dabei ist natürlich durchaus möglich, dass Kapitel 7 nicht zum Werk des Jason von Kyrene gehörte.

Die Idee von „Geschichte“ im 2. Makkabäerbuch  195

Bibliographie DOBBELER, St. von, Die Bücher 1/2 Makkabäer (NSK.AT 11), Stuttgart 1997. DORAN, R., Temple Propaganda: The Purpose and Character of 2 Macabees (CBQMS 12), Washington 1981. EGO, B., God’s Justice. The ‚Measure for Measure‘ Principle in 2 Maccabees, in: G.G. Xeravits und J. Zsengellér (Hg.), The Books of the Maccabees. History, Theology, Ideology (JSJSup 118), Leiden 2007, 141-154. GOLDSTEIN, J.A., II Maccabees (AncB 41A), Garden City 1983. GRUEN, E.S., Hellenism and Judaism: Fluid Boundaries, in: ders., The Construct of Identity in Hellenistic Judaism. Essays on Early Jewish Literature and History (DCLS 29), Berlin 2016, 113-132. GRUEN, E.S., Hellenism and Persecution: Antiochus IV and the Jews, in: ders., The Construct of Identity in Hellenistic Judaism. Essays on Early Jewish Literature and History (DCLS 29), Berlin 2016, 333-357. GRUEN, E.S., The Purported Jewish-Spartan Affiliation, in: ders., The Construct of Identity in Hellenistic Judaism. Essays on Early Jewish Literature and History (DCLS 29), Berlin 2016, 153-166. HABICHT, Chr., 2. Makkabäerbuch (JSHRZ I/3), Gütersloh 1976. MARKSCHIES, Chr., Wie theologisch ist die Kirchengeschichte? (Vorlesungen der Gastprofessur Benedikt XVI., Regensburg Sommer 2017). NICKELSBURG, G.W.E., Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism and Early Christianity (HTS 56), Cambridge ²2006. NICKLAS, T., Der Historiker als Erzähler. Zur Zeichnung des Seleukidenkönigs Antiochus in 2 Makk.: VT 51 (2002) 80-92. NICKLAS, T., Die ‚Fratze‘ des Feindes. Zur Charakterisierung des Nikanor in 2 Makk 14-15: SJOT 17 (2003) 141-155. NICKLAS, T., Irony in 2 Maccabees?, in: G.G. Xeravits und J. Zsengellér (Hg.), The Books of the Maccabees. History, Theology, Ideology (JSJSup 118), Leiden 2007, 101-111. NICKLAS, T., Makkabaion II / Das zweite Buch der Makkabäer, in: S. Kreuzer (Hg.), Einleitung in die Septuaginta (LXX.H 1), Gütersloh 2016, 306-313. RAJAK, T., Dying for the Law. The Martyr’s Portrait in Jewish-Greek Literature, in: M.J. Edwards und S. Swain (Hg.), Portraits. Biographical Representation in the Greek and Latin Literature of the Roman Empire, Oxford 1997, 39-68. SCHMITZ, B., Auferstehung und Epiphanie: Jenseits- und Körperkonzepte im Zweiten Makkabäerbuch, in: T. Nicklas et al. (Hg.), The Human Body in Death and Resurrection (DCLY 2009), Berlin 2009, 105-142. SCHMITZ, B., Geschaffen aus dem Nichts? Die Funktion der Rede von der Schöpfung im Zweiten Makkabäerbuch, in: T. Nicklas und K. Zamfir (Hg.), Theologies of Creation in Early Judaism and Ancient Christianity. In Honour of Hans Klein (DCLS 6), Berlin 2010, 61-80. SCHNOCKS, J., Judäer oder Juden? Beobachtungen zu den Beschreibungen der eigenen Identität in den Gewaltszenen des zweiten Makkabäerbuches, in: F.V. Reiterer et al. (Hg.), Gesellschaft und Religion in der spätbiblischen und deuterokanonischen Literatur (DCLS 20), Berlin 2014, 111-128. SCHWARTZ, D.R., 2 Maccabees (Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature), Berlin 2008.

196  Tobias Nicklas SIEGERT, F., Einleitung in die hellenistisch-jüdische Literatur. Apokrypha, Pseudepigrapha und Fragmente verlorener Autorenwerke, Berlin 2016. VAN HENTEN, J.W., The Maccabean Martyrs as Saviours of the Jewish People. A Study of 2 and 4 Maccabees (JSJSup 57), Leiden 1997. WRIGHT, B.G., Hellenization and Jewish Identity in the Deuterocanonical Literature, in: G.G. Xeravits et al. (Hg.), Canonicity, Setting, Wisdom in the Deuterocanonicals. Papers of the Jubilee Meeting of the International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books (DCLS 22), Berlin 2014, 29-68. ZSENGELLÉR, J., Maccabees and Temple Propaganda, in: G.G. Xeravits und J. Zsengellér (Hg.), The Books of the Maccabees. History, Theology, Ideology (JSJSup 118), Leiden 2007, 181-195. ZWICK, R., Unterhaltung und Nutzen. Zum literarischen Profil des 2. Buchs der Makkabäer, in: ders. und F.R. Prostmeier (Hg.), Steht nicht geschrieben? Studien zur Bibel und ihrer Wirkungsgeschichte. FS G. Schmuttermayr, Regensburg 2001, 125-149.

Sean A. Adams

Where’s Rome? A Possible Roman Parallel to the Translation of the Septuagint in the Letter of Aristeas Abstract: This chapter asks why there is so little discussion of Roman background or influence in scholarly discussion of Letter of Aristeas. Following a brief history of Roman influence in Egypt during the second century BCE, I explore the story of the translation of Mago of Carthage’s On Farming that was commissioned by the Roman senate in 146 BCE and identify parallels to Ps.Aristeas’ depiction of the translation of Jewish Scripture. The contribution concludes with an invitation to scholars to look beyond the Greek/Alexandrian locale and to recognise possible Roman influences on Aristeas. Keywords: Letter of Aristeas, Roman Empire, Alexandria, translation, Septuagint, Mago of Carthage It is a pleasure to contribute to this Festschrift for Benjamin G. Wright III. Wright has made substantial contributions to the field of Second Temple Judaism broadly, and to the study of the Septuagint and Letter of Aristeas specifically. One of the refreshing aspects of Wright’s scholarship is his willingness to explore challenging questions from new, creative perspectives, applying scholarly imagination to gain fresh insight into protracted issues. Wright asks simple, but important questions and explores possibilities. In this contribution I will seek to channel a Wrightian perspective and raise the question: Where is Rome in our study of the Letter of Aristeas? In particular, I will look at the case for recognising Roman influence in Alexandria at the time of Aristeas’ composition and explore a possible Roman parallel to the depiction of the Greek translation.

1 Alexandrian Background to Letter of Aristeas Set in the Alexandrian royal courts, the opening and closing of the Letter of Aristeas tell the story of the ‘translation’ of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek (§§9–11, 301–321) and recalls all of the pomp and ceremony surrounding this process. The text is written to Philocrates (§1) from the perspective of Aristeas, a Greek administrator reported to be involved in the events. Both characters are

https://doi.org/10.1515/ 9783110596373-013

198  Sean A. Adams Greek in ethnicity and so provide an ‘outsider’s’ perspective to the narrated events. The text, however, is Jewish in origin, written by an unknown author likely in the latter part of the second century BCE. 1 The proposed narrative rationale in Aristeas is that Philocrates has a deep love of learning (κατειληφὼς ἣν ἔχεις φιλομαθῆ διάθεσιν, §1), and so would be interested in Aristeas’ experiences and this Jewish text. 2 In light of the work’s literary setting of Alexandria, there has been a move recently to read Aristeas as part of Alexandrian literary culture and to compare the contents of the text to then contemporary historical figures and Greek methods of textual scholarship. 3 There is a lot of merit to this perspective and it has enriched our understanding of Aristeas substantially. For instance, Honigman has proposed a “Homeric paradigm” for understanding Aristeas, arguing that the use of grammatical language suggests that, in the mind of the author of Aristeas and/or his contemporaries, the founding of the Greek version of Scripture was of the same magnitude as the establishment of Homer’s text. 4 As Aristarchus’ texts was thought to be the pinnacle of editorial achievement, 5 so too the author of Aristeas presents the LXX as perfectly accurate (πᾶν ἠκριβωμένως, §310). 6 Such reading practices, although not without challenges, have opened up new and fruitful avenues of approaching the text. Similar focus has been given to the discussion of the freeing of the Jewish slaves in §§12–27 and 33–37. There is substantial evidence for a robust Jewish population in Egypt, both in Alexandria and in the chora (although scholars are still nuancing particularities and the makeup and distribution of this people group), 7 and there is widespread agreement that at least some portion of the  1 WRIGHT, Letter of Aristeas, 21–30. 2 The reader is also thought to share Philocrates’ love of learning (§§7, 171, 300) and interest in the Jewish people, religious topics, as well as the ultimate importance of piety (§§2, 5). 3 HONIGMAN, Septuagint and Homeric Scholarship; NIEHOFF, Jewish Exegesis, 19–37; MATUSOVA, Meaning. 4 HONIGMAN, Septuagint and Homeric Scholarship, 120; HONIGMAN, Narrative Function, 128. This perspective is critiqued by MATUSOVA (Meaning, 79–82), who highlights the differences between Homer and LXX regarding style (poetry/prose), quality (good/poor), and prestige (high/low). Although Matusova is correct in her assessment, I think she downplays the perspective of the Jewish scholars and their view of Scripture as a possible parallel to the importance of Homer’s works for Greeks. 5 PFEIFFER, History of Classical Scholarship, 210–233. 6 Similarly, Philo (Mos. 2.40) also highlights this perfection through the translators communing with the spirit of Moses. Cf. KAMESAR, Biblical Interpretation in Philo, 66–72. 7 For an excellent example of engaging with ancient evidence, see CLARYSSE/THOMPSON, Counting the People, 2.147–148.

Where’s Rome?  199

Jewish population was held in slavery at this time. 8 Of greater interest for some Aristeas scholars is the way that the author depicts the Jewish people in contrast to other Jewish authors who have a much more positive narrative of why Jews can be found in Alexandria (e.g., Ps.-Hecataeus, cf. Josephus, C. Ap. 1.186–189). 9 Others, such as Wright, have made detailed investigations into the verbal and content parallels between §§22–25 and C.Ord.Ptol. 22, a decree of Ptolemy II concerning the registration of ‘free native persons’ who have been enslaved, arguing that linguistic parallels might inform our reading of Aristeas and the author’s intentions. Overall, scholars who study Aristeas are content to focus primarily on the Graeco-Egyptian world, making detailed references to Jewish and Gentile texts, but rarely engage Latin authors. 10 One likely reason is that there is no mention of the Romans in the text of Aristeas. This elision is understandable in light of the narrative setting of the work, namely the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus. At this time in history, Roman influence in Egypt is essentially (although not completely) absent as the Romans were still embroiled with their Latin neighbours and setting their sights on the Carthaginians. Another reason for this preference in referencing is that the text is written in Greek and by a Jew and so it is natural for interpreters to prioritise these two groups. As this section has highlighted, such a perspective and privileging of references is warranted and have produced substantial interpretive fruit. My question, however, is whether or not we have overlooked a third stream of parallels, namely that of Latin literature and Roman culture. It is not that scholars have discussed potential Roman influence(s) in Aristeas and have set it aside. Rather, this idea has not really been discussed at all. This is surprising given the role and influence that Rome had in the eastern Mediterranean at the time of Aristeas’ composition.

2 Roman Influence in Alexandria Although the author of Aristeas did not live within the Roman Empire and so was not subject to its rule, by the time of Aristeas’ composition in the late second century BCE the Greek world was very much aware of Rome’s growing  8 Contra ABEL, Myth of Jewish Slavery. Cf. Josephus, Ant. 12.4–7; C. Ap. 1.208–212. 9 HONIGMAN, Septuagint and Homeric Scholarship, 53–56. 10 WRIGHT, Letter of Aristeas, 478–496. PELLETIER, Lettre d’Aristée. Indeed, BUGH (ed.), Cambridge Companion essentially omits any mention of Rome and the Roman Empire.

200  Sean A. Adams dominance. Having recently conquered the Greek mainland (146 BCE) and conclusively defeated the Carthaginians in the third Punic War, including the razing of Carthage (146 BCE), Rome was recognised as the dominant power in the west. This influence increased suddenly in 133 BCE when, at his death, Attalus III, King of Pergamum, bequeathed his kingdom to Rome, giving them a stronghold in Asia Minor. 11 Roman control continued to grow throughout the first century BCE, culminating their rule in the battle of Actium in 31 BCE. More importantly for our paper, we see that Rome was actively involved in protecting their interests in Egypt long before they took position of it, stretching back to 273 BCE with gifts sent to Rome by Ptolemy II Philadelphus. 12 More relevant for our paper, in 168 BCE, Roman Consul Gaius Popillius Laenas protected Egypt from Seleucid expansion with the now proverbial ‘line in the sand’ comment to Antiochus IV Epiphanes. 13 Roman activity in Egypt continued with the intense rivalry between Ptolemy VI Philometor (r. 180–145 BCE) and Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II (r.170–163, 145–116 BCE). In their fraught co-reign, both monarchs petitioned Rome for support to overthrow his rival brother, allowing Rome the power of adjudicating their claims and grievances. In order to cause greater instability, Rome sided with the younger Ptolemy (VIII), using him as a pawn to inhibit the rise of Egyptian power. 14 Beginning in 155 BCE, a number of the reigning monarchs of Egypt drafted wills in which the beneficiary of the nation was Rome (e.g., Ptolemy VIII, X, and Ptolemy Apion). 15 This was not out of love or fear of the Romans, but was a strategic political move, securing both protection in Egypt from early assassinations as well as favourable connections with Rome. 16 In particular, the will by Ptolemy VII outlines the strong relationship between him and Rome, thanking Rome for its previous support and their promise of future action in his defence (SEG IX 7, lines 13–16). The intention of the will writers was not to give control of Egypt to the Romans as the terms specified were unlikely to be fulfilled (i.e., it was unlikely that the Ptolemaic rulers would

 11 For a discussion of the intentionality of this will, see BRAUND, Royal Wills. 12 Cf. Dionysius Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 20.14.1–2; Valerius Maximus 4.3.9. Cf. GRUEN, Hellenistic World, 672–719, esp. 673–685. 13 Cf. Polybius, Hist. 29.27.1–13; Livy, Hist. 45.12. Cf. the Demotic ostracon, in RAY, Archives of Ḥor, 14–20. Roman contact with Antiochus V is reported in 2 Macc 11:34–38. 14 Polybius, Hist. 31.10.1–10. Cf. Diodorus Siculus, Hist. 33.28b.1–4. 15 See, for examples, SEG IX 7; Cicero, Agr. 2.41. BADIAN, Testament of Ptolemy Alexander. For a detailed discussion, see GRUEN, Hellenistic World, 1.702–705. 16 The text states that a copy of the will was sent to Rome, SEG IX 7, lines 6–7. For the previous assassination attempt on Ptolemy VIII’s life, see Polybius, Hist. 33.11.2.

Where’s Rome?  201

die childless). Nevertheless, the figure of Rome loomed large and was a recognised piece in political negotiation. Although Ptolemy VIII’s will was very positive towards Rome, presenting a picture of close friendship, we do have reports of Ptolemaic rulers acting in a particular ways so as not to upset the Romans. In the first decade of the second century BCE Ptolemy V Epiphanes is said to have offered Rome money and troops for their war on Greece once he had broken friendly relations in siding with the Seleucids, although his gift was not accepted. 17 Josephus claims that Ptolemy VI Philometor declined the crown of Asia lest he appear to give offence to Rome and so lose their support (Ant. 13.113–115; cf. 1 Macc 11:13). Similarly, Diodotus Tryphon, king of Syria (r. 142–138 BCE), actively sought Rome’s support through elaborate gifts (cf. Diodorus Siculus, Hist. 33.28a.1). These reports might have fictional elements, but they provide ancient evidence that certain authors found the idea of Roman power and influence and Greek peaceful, diplomatic overtures compelling. These active interventions into Ptolemaic politics provide evidence of a lasting connection between Egypt and Rome beginning in the first half of the second century BCE and continuing with enduring effect until Rome’s ultimate conquest in 31 BCE. With such a strong connection between Egypt and Rome it is interesting that very few scholars try to use this historical reconstruction as an interpretive backdrop to any of the Jewish texts composed in Alexandria prior to Rome’s conquest. Indeed, as Aristeas is thought to have been written in the latter part of the second century BCE the omission by scholars in discussing such a prominent political entity is striking. For the remainder of this paper, I would like to explore one possible Roman parallel with Aristeas. Specifically, I will explore the depiction of Mago’s statefunded translation to see if it can provide insight into the narrative of the translation of the Greek Scriptures in Aristeas.

3 Rome and State-Funded Translations It is in the context of conquest that our primary example of Latin, state-funded translation emerges. The translation of Mago of Carthage’s work, On Farming, into Latin was a momentous event and was tied to the final conquest of the

 17 Livy, Hist. 36.4.1–4; Cf. Livy, Hist. 34.57.1–34.59.8; Diodorus Siculus, Hist. 28.15.1–4.

202  Sean A. Adams Carthaginian people by Rome. The tradition of this event is recounted by Pliny the Elder some two centuries later, And also on the Carthaginian Mago, on whom indeed our senate bestowed such great honour, after the taking of Carthage, that when it gave away the city’s libraries to the kings of Africa (regulis Africae) it passed a resolution that in his case alone his twentyeight volumes should be translated into Latin (in Latinam linguam transferenda), in spite of the fact that Marcus Cato had already compiled his book of precepts, and that the task should be given to persons acquainted with the Carthaginian language, an accomplishment in which Decimus Silanus, a man of most distinguished family, surpassed everybody (Nat. 18.22–23). 18

Very little is known about Mago and only fragments of his work have survived. 19 Nevertheless, the importance and impact of Mago’s On Farming in antiquity is not difficult to express. Not only was this treatise translated into Latin by the Roman senate, a unique occurrence as highlighted by Pliny, it was also translated into Greek by Cassius Dionysius of Utica, which in turn was abridged into six books by Diophanes of Nicaea, both of whom under took their work in the first century BCE (Pliny, Nat. 1.18; Columella, De Agricultura 1.1.10). 20 Mago’s work was considered the pinnacle of technical achievements in agriculture and was used by Cicero as a trope in his writings, “Need he know by heart the volumes of Mago of Carthage?” (De or. 1.249). The importance and fame of this work deriving from North Africa can hardly be overstated and was used by many subsequent authors on this topic, 21 and was most likely known to authors living in Alexandria. 22

 18 Translation modified from RACKHAM, Pliny. 19 Not to be confused with Mago, the brother of Hannibal (cf. Polybius, Hist. 9.22.2; Livy, Hist. 30.18; Suda M 360). Mago is generally thought to live around 3rd–2nd century BCE. For details of his life, see DOMINGUEZ PETIT, Fuentes literarias, 181–183; GREENE and KEHOE, Mago the Carthaginian, 110–117. For a scholarly history of the dating of Mago, see HEURGON, L’agronome carthaginois Magon, 442–443. 20 Interestingly, Pliny in his outline of his work in Book 1 states that he uses ‘Dionysius’ translation of Mago and Diophanes’ summary of Dionysius’ (Dionysio qui Magonem transtulit, Diophane qui ex Dionysio epitomen fecit) and not the Latin translation of Decimus Silanus mentioned in Nat. 18.22. Elements of Mago’s treatise were also included in Arabic works centuries later. Cf. DOMINGUEZ PETIT, Fuentes literarias, 183–184. For a fuller history of Mago’s translators, see HEURGON, L’agronome carthaginois Magon. 21 E.g., Varro, De Re Rustica 1.1.10; Columella, De Agricultura 1.1.13, 12.4.2; De Re Rustica 4.10.1. 22 Cf. the Plautine scholium from Caecius (thought to be Johnnes Tzetzes) in PARSONS, Alexandrian Library, 108–109. Unfortunately, there is no firm evidence to show that Mago was read at Alexandria. However, in light of its prestige, the interest in it by Rome, and the practice of the

Where’s Rome?  203

Returning to Pliny’s depiction, we can gain a sense of the magnitude of the endeavour. First, the translation project is presented as being commissioned by the Roman senate. To our knowledge, this is the only example of such commissioning in the Republic era, which indicates the importance of the work and its status beyond the Carthaginian Empire. 23 This was a rare instance of official recognition given to a foreign, non-Greek work, especially as the rest of the Carthaginian libraries were not thought to be worth keeping and so given to the Numidian kings (regulis Africae). 24 The preservation of Mago’s work from the library in Carthage is also worth noting, as presumably this would have been the best version of the text, having come from the nation’s capital and the author’s city of residence. Pliny further highlights the value of Mago’s work by noting that Cato the Elder’s On Farming was already published (Nat. 18.22-23); it was not because Rome lacked farming manuals that Mago’s treatise was translated, but because of its reputation and prestige. The size of the work, twenty-eight volumes, also adds to the scale of the activity as this was not a small undertaking. This task, moreover, was not assigned to any one individual, but was given to a group of translators (Nat. 18.23). This group commissioning is markedly different from the way that non-Latin texts were typically translated into Latin, which were almost exclusively individual efforts and outwith the control of the senate. 25 Moreover, as far as we are able to determine, the Latin translation of Mago adhered closely to the original and did not substantially adapt it. Close adherence to the original was, again, not the way that translations were typically undertaken by Latin authors, who used the act of translation to instill Latin ideas into previously foreign texts. In fact, according to Cicero and others, being too faithful to the text would undermine the intention of translation, namely to imbue previous Greek thought with Roman ideals, to cultivate Latin literature by

 Alexandrian library to hold important texts (cf. §9), it is likely his work would have been known there and that the library might have even had copies of this work. 23 There may have been other translation of texts commissioned by the Roman senate or emperor. Nevertheless, the translation is presented as a singular honour for Mago and so reinforces the uniqueness of the event. 24 The only other known example of a Latin translation of a Punic text comes from Sallust, who had the geographic work of Hiempsal translated so he could use it as a source for his history (Bell. Jug. 17.7). 25 For an excellent discussion of Latin translation approaches and practices, see MCELDUFF, Roman Theories of Translation. Cf. ADAMS, Translating Texts. For a discussion of translation approaches, see WRIGHT, Access to the Source.

204  Sean A. Adams adopting the strengths of other cultures, and to provide a new voice for the Roman populous. 26

4 Parallels between Mago and Letter of Aristeas The depiction of state-funded translation of Mago’s work by the Roman senate has a few parallels with the way that the translation of Hebrew Scripture is presented in Aristeas. First, both works are from subordinate people groups over whom the dominant culture has militarily conquered. In the case of the Carthaginians, Roman conquest had just occurred. On the other hand, the Jewish people had been under Greek/Ptolemaic rule for generations. The difference in time of subordination is less important than the reality of established power hierarchies in which both Jews and Carthaginians were in a subordinated position. Second, the original work is composed in the language of the conquered and is translated into the language of the conquerors. This might indicate that access to the text’s contents was originally obscured to the newly dominant group. However, Pliny notes that a number of high-ranking Romans were sufficiently conversant with the Punic language so as to be able to translate it into Latin (Nat. 18.23). 27 Conversely, Ps.-Aristeas does not claim that the Alexandrian librarians or anyone in Ptolemy’s court had knowledge of Hebrew, although they are presented as knowledgeable enough to know it was composed in Hebrew and with Hebrew script (γὰρ ἰδίοις κατὰ τὴν Ἰουδαίαν χρῶνται, §11; Ἑβραϊκοῖς γράμμασι καὶ φωνῇ, §30). The transition of these texts from the subordinate to the dominant language is an important move and signals not only the importance of the text, but its perceived value for those commissioning the translation. Third, in both cases the foreign text is taken from the respective capital cities and is presented as being the version of the text required for translation. 28 In §§30–32, Ps.-Aristeas emphasised the need for well maintained and curated texts that come from an accurate source text. Ancient scholars were aware that not all texts were equal in quality and that the best texts were regularly (though not always) held in the author’s personal library or the originating city’s li 26 Cf. Cicero, Opt. gen. 18, 25; Tusc. 2.5-6; Leg. 2.17; Off. 1.6; Pliny, Ep. 7.9.4; and Horace, Ars 131–135. 27 On this point, see ADAMS, Bilingualism, 200–245. 28 So ZUNTZ, Aristeas Studies II, 120; cf. §§175–179.

Where’s Rome?  205

brary. 29 In the case of Aristeas, the focus on Jerusalem aligns well with the scholarly practice at Alexandria to secure the best text editions for study. 30 Similarly, the conquest of Carthage provided new access to Mago’s text that led to its translation. Given the importance of Mago’s On Farming, it is likely that the Romans had access to Mago’s text prior to the capture of Carthage. 31 That the translation happens at this moment might indicate that, now that the best version of the text had been obtained, it was the ideal time to engage in translating the text. 32 Fourth, in both narratives the translation is commissioned by the highest ruling body in their Roman and Greek nations (senate and king, respectively). The active intrusion by political authorities into the translation of a foreign work is the most distinctive element of both narratives. In both depictions the undertaking of the translation is commissioned by the dominant authority and is, presumably, financially supported by them. 33 The state-funded translation is motivated by the perceived importance of the source texts (e.g., §31, φιλοσοφωτέραν), but at the same time confers upon both significant prestige and honour so as to make the texts worthy of translation. The act of choosing by the king/senate makes the text special and establishes its value for future readers. Fifth, a team of translators, each with a clear leader, 34 are established for undertaking the translation. As mentioned above, this is significantly different to the individual translations that were the normal practice for Latin authors. Individual translations were also undertaken by Jewish authors (e.g., Sirach) and evidence from Septuagint scholarship suggests that translators worked both individually and also in groups. 35 The importance in our discussion is that  29 For an ancient perspective of the importance of a book’s origin and history, see Strabo, Geogr. 13.1.54. 30 E.g., the texts of Sophocles, Euripides, and Aeschylus held at Athens. Cf. Galen, Commentary on the Epidemics of Hippocrates 2.4, KÜHN, Claudii Galeni Opera Omnia, 17.1.607–608. 31 At the very least the Romans knew of Mago’s work, otherwise they would not have singled it out from the contents of the library. 32 The importance of quality source texts is highlighted by Cicero, who laments that poor translations made from inferior Greek texts have given Latin philosophical writings a bad name (Fin. 1.8; cf. Fam. 15.19.2). 33 This is explicit in Aristeas (§§33, 181–183), but implicit in Pliny’s description. 34 Although D. Julius Silanus is said to be superior for this task, Pliny suggests that the translation process was undertaken by a number of individuals (Nat. 18.23). 35 For example, some recensions are attributed to certain individuals (e.g., Theodotion, Lucian) and certain LXX texts are thought to have been translated by two or more translators (e.g., Jeremiah). On the latter, see TOV, Septuagint Translation.

206  Sean A. Adams the authorities did not think that translation by an individual was feasible or beneficial in these instances, whether that is because of the size of the task, the benefit of team translation, or, more likely, a combination of the two. 36 In addition to the number of similarities, there are also a few differences between the depictions of Pliny and Ps.-Aristeas. One potential difference is the way that other, competing texts are mentioned in the narratives. For example, although both Ps.-Aristeas and Pliny reference alternative texts within each tradition, the nature of the texts is different. Pliny explicitly states that a Latin work on farming was already published and in circulation at the time of the senate’s decree, namely the work by Marcus Cato. In contrast, Ps.-Aristeas identifies alternate source texts, but denigrates them as ἀμελέστερον and καὶ οὐχ ὡς ὑπάρχει, σεσήμανται (§30). 37 The author of Aristeas also mentions previous (failed) translations (§§312–316), but these were not fully completed works. The authors in both cases imply that previously existing texts could have been used, but they were thought to be defective in some way so as to create a need for the ones being translated. This framing of alternate texts not only enhances the perceived importance of the translated work, but also provides a rationale for why the expenditure of energy and resources was necessary. Another potential difference between the two accounts is what happens to the text after it has been translated. At the conclusion of Aristeas, the official translation is ordered to be preserved reverently (συντηρεῖν ἁγνῶς, §317). There is no mention of it being placed in the royal library or that the Hebrew originals were taken back to Jerusalem by the Jewish translators (§318), although it might be fair to say that both are assumed in the narrative (cf. Josephus, Ant. 12.48; Tertullian, Apol. 18.8). In Pliny’s narrative of Mago’s work, there is no mention of the afterlife of the text. We know that the text was used by later Latin authors (esp. Varro and Columella) and that it was subsequently translated into Greek and then epitomised. However, it is unclear if the text was stored in a library at Rome. 38  36 On the need of a group of scholars to establish a text and the parallel between the 72 Jewish translators and the 72 editors of Homer commissioned by Pisistratus, see MATUSOVA, Meaning, 54–61. 37 There are two main positions regarding the language of the text in Aristeas § 30: it is a Hebrew text (ZUNTZ) or a Greek one (KAHLE). For a discussion of the positions, see WRIGHT, Letter of Aristeas, 145–148. 38 The translation is unlikely to have been held in any other official location (e.g., aerarium or tabularium) seeing that most documents at this time were kept in private custody (cf. Cicero, Sull. 42). Certain plays, however, were kept in the state archives (cf. Terence, Eun. 19–21). Cf. CULHAM, Archives, 100–115. Libraries were certainly around in Rome at this time (cf. Plutarch,

Where’s Rome?  207

The main difference between the two narratives is their relationship to history; we have strong evidence in support of the historicity of Mago’s translation, whereas, the historical veracity of the events in Aristeas is suspect. It is clear that both Mago’s On Farming and the Hebrew Scriptures were in fact translated into Latin and Greek, respectively, but the specific details surrounding these events are lost. Wright, comparing the LXX translation with the depiction in Aristeas, highlights the fact that every point in the textual makeup of the LXX contradicts what the author of Aristeas says about it. 39 The lack of correspondence between the LXX and Aristeas begs the question of what the author was trying to accomplish and why the translation of the LXX was presented in such a way. I think Wright, drawing on certain ideas from Kahle, correctly assesses this issue: “Aristeas does not contain any genuine reflection on the original intended function of the LXX; it legitimizes what the LXX had become by the middle part of the second century BCE.” 40 Although I find this statement compelling, it falls short for our purposes, which asks the subsequent question of why Ps.-Aristeas present the narrative in the way he did. The number of similarities between the translation account in Aristeas and that of Mago by Pliny is striking and raises the question of whether or not there is a connection between the stories found in the two texts. Is it possible that the author of Aristeas knew of the translation of Mago’s work and used elements of that narrative in the creation of his text? 41 I am not arguing here that Ps.Aristeas made use of Pliny; such a proposal is not viable based on textual dating. Rather, as we have discussed above, substantial contact existed between Rome and Alexandria that would have allowed for the tale of Mago’s translation to become known to Ps.-Aristeas. The similarities in the date of the sacking of Carthage and the proposed time of composition of Aristeas increase the likeliness of this situation. Such a scenario is not impossible and one can think of a number of reasons why creating parallels between the translation projects of Mago and of the Hebrew Scriptures could have been appealing. For example, it would reinforce the importance of the LXX, elevating its status as a pinnacle text of philosophy. Ps.Aristeas wishes to present the Jewish translators and the Hebrew Scriptures as  Aem. 28.7; Polybius, Hist. 12.27.4), although little is known about them. For a discussion of libraries and their holdings in Rome, see NICHOLLS, Landscapes of Learning. 39 WRIGHT, Aristeas and Reception History, esp. 59–61. 40 WRIGHT, Aristeas and Reception History, 67. Cf. KAHLE, Cairo Geniza, 211. 41 It is clear that Ps.-Aristeas was not using Pliny for his composition; that element of dependence can be ruled out by the date of composition of each work. The story of the translation, however, is something that could have made its way to Alexandria.

208  Sean A. Adams being worthy of translation. One does not translate any work, but only those that are thought to be of benefit. In the case of Mago, the benefit was to the Roman people as a whole, who now have access to the best text on agriculture. In the case of Aristeas, the author presents Jewish Scripture as being a most excellent text with regard to philosophy and divine in character (φιλοσοφωτέραν... ὡς ἂν οὖσαν θείαν §31), which is only now being made available to Greek speakers. Another possibility, and one that might have a better claim, is that the author of Aristeas was not inspired by Mago’s translation specifically, but that both Pliny and Ps.-Aristeas were depicting the processes of state-funded scholarship in antiquity. 42 Both authors are substantially removed from the events depicted and so would out of necessity be dependent on sources and tradition for their narratives. In the case of Ps.-Aristeas, it is very possible that he adapted an established schema for royal patronage and incorporated additional elements to complete his narrative. However, even if this is the case, Pliny’s narrative of Mago’s translation becomes invaluable as it is the only other example of state-funded translation from this time period. To ignore this Roman parallel closes a window of interpretation and limits our understanding of the text.

5 Conclusion The points of contact between the Roman senate’s commissioning of the translation of Mago and the translation of the Torah in Aristeas are worth investigating. In light of the similarities and in the timing of events, it is reasonable to question whether or not the story of Mago’s translation into Latin influenced the way that Ps.-Aristeas depicted his translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. Even if a direct connection is denied, these two depictions are important witnesses to a possible schema for how state-funded translations were commissioned and discussed in antiquity. More importantly, this paper encourages scholars to look beyond the Greek/Alexandrian locale and to recognise the fact that awareness of the Roman Empire and its activities could be an important factor for the motivations of an author and the interpretation of his/her text. Such a perspective does not un 42 Another example of royal patronage for translation is found in the preface to Dictys Cretensis’ Journal of the Trojan War, a second century CE work that recounts how the Phoenician text was discovered during the reign of Nero and that Nero, recognising the script, called for it to be translated into Greek and placed in the library.

Where’s Rome?  209

dermine or negate Greek or Jewish parallels, but seeks to place Aristeas more firmly within the wider Graeco-Roman world and in light of known events from antiquity.

Bibliography ABEL, E.L., The Myth of Jewish Slavery in Ptolemaic Egypt: REJ 127 (1968) 253–258. ADAMS, J.N., Bilingualism and the Latin Language, Cambridge 2003. ADAMS, S.A., Translating Texts: Roman and Jewish Translation Practices, in: idem (ed.), Scholastic Culture in the Hellenistic and Roman Eras: Greek, Latin, and Jewish, Leiden forthcoming 2018. BADIAN, E., The Testament of Ptolemy Alexander: Rheinisches Museum 110 (1967) 178–192. BRAUND, D., Royal Wills and Rome: Papers of the British School at Rome 51 (1983) 16–57. BUGH, G.R. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Hellenistic World, Cambridge 2006. CLARYSSE, W. / THOMPSON, D.J., Counting the People in Hellenist Egypt (CCS, 2 vols.), Cambridge 2006. CULHAM, P. Archives and Alternatives in Roman Republic: Classical Philology 84 (1989) 100–115. DOMINGUEZ PETIT, R., Fuentes literarias para la agricultura cartagines: El tradado de Magon: Habis 35 (2004) 179–192. GREENE, J.A. / KEHOE, D.P., Mago the Carthaginian, in: M.H. Fantar and M. Ghaki (eds.), Actes du IIIe Congrès international des études phéniciennes et puniques: Tunis, 11–16 novembre 1991, Tunis 1995, 110–117. GRUEN, E.S., The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome (2 vols.), Berkeley 1984. HEURGON, J., L’agronome carthaginois Magon et ses traducteurs en latin et en grec: CRAIBL 120 (1976) 441–456. HONIGMAN, S., The Septuagint and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria: A Study in the Narrative of the Letter of Aristeas, London 2003. HONIGMAN, S., The Narrative Function of the King and the Library in the Letter of Aristeas, in: T. Rajak et al. (eds.), Jewish Perspectives on Hellenistic Rulers, Berkeley 2007, 128–146. KAHLE, P., The Cairo Geniza (2nd ed.), Oxford 1953. KAMESAR, A., Biblical Interpretation in Philo, in: idem (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Philo, Cambridge 2009, 65–94. KÜHN, C.G. (ed.), Claudii Galeni Opera Omnia (20 vols.), Leipzig 1821–1833. MATUSOVA, E., The Meaning of the Letter of Aristeas: In Light of Biblical Interpretation and Grammatical Tradition, and with Reference to its Historical Context (FRLANT 260), Göttingen 2015. MCELDUFF, S., Roman Theories of Translation: Surpassing the Source (RMCS 14), London 2013. NICHOLLS, M., Landscapes of Learning: Bookish Places in Imperial Rome, in: S.A. Adams (ed.), Scholastic Culture in the Hellenistic and Roman Eras: Greek, Latin, and Jewish, Leiden forthcoming 2018. NIEHOFF, M.R., Jewish Exegesis and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria, Cambridge 2011. PARSONS, E.A., The Alexandrian Library: Glory of the Hellenic World, London 1952. PELLETIER, A., Lettre d’Aristée à Philocrate: introduction, texte critique, traduction et notes, index complet des mot grecs, Paris 1962.

210  Sean A. Adams PFEIFFER, R., History of Classical Scholarship: From the Beginnings to the End of the Hellenistic Age, Oxford 1968. RACKHAM, H., Pliny: Natural History, with an English Translation in Ten Volumes (LCL), Cambridge 1961. RAY, J.D., The Archives of Ḥor, London 1976. TOV, E., The Septuagint Translation of Jeremiah and Baruch: A Discussion of an Early Revision of the LXX of Jeremiah 29–52 and Baruch 1:1–3:8 (HSM 8), Ann Arbor 1976. WRIGHT III, B.G., Access to the Source: Cicero, Ben Sira, The Septuagint and Their Audiences: JSJ 34 (2003) 1–27. WRIGHT III, B.G., The Letter of Aristeas and the Reception History of the Septuagint: BIOSCS 39 (2006) 47–67. WRIGHT III, B.G., The Letter of Aristeas: ‘Aristeas to Philocrates’ or ‘On the Translation of the Law of the Jews’ (CEJL), Berlin 2015. ZUNTZ, G., Aristeas Studies II: Aristeas on the Translation of the Torah: JSS 4 (1959) 109–126.

Barbara Schmitz

King and God Conceptions of Rule and God in 3 Maccabees Abstract: In 3 Maccabees, kingship as a form of rule is addressed on two levels: On the political level the question about a good king is addressed against the background of Hellenistic understandings of kingship, using the example of Ptolemy IV Philopator. This king is portrayed at the beginning of 3 Maccabees as a successful, positive, Hellenistic ruler, but one whose good rule goes off the rails. This analysis of the ideal of Hellenistic rule (cf. 3 Macc. 3:12–29; 6:24–28; 7:1–9) is then taken to a theological level: the God of Israel is portrayed as the true good king, the Soter who saves his people in their time of greatest trial (6:29, 32; 7:16). By these means the many divine epithets that are a striking feature of 3 Maccabees are incorporated into the narrative (cf. 2:2–3). Thereby 3 Maccabees not only thematises the conflict with a Hellenistic king who exploits his power in diverse ways but also focuses in a concentrated way the notion of a good (Hellenistic) king into the notion of God as king and ruler. Keywords: Maccabees, Hellenistic kingship, Xenophon, Cyropaidia, Isocrates, God in 3 Macc

1 Introduction In the book so-called 3 Maccabees we learn nothing about the Maccabees or about the period of the Maccabees. Rather, the book portrays events that took place during the rule of the Ptolemaic king Ptolemy IV Philopator (222/1–205/4 BCE). The relationship of King Ptolemy IV to the Jewish community is narrated in two episodes: 1 the threat posed by the king’s desire to enter the temple in Jerusalem (1:1–2:24), and the attempt, initiated by the king, to kill the Jews of Alexandria in the hippodrome (2:25–7:22). Third Maccabees ascribes to King Ptolemy IV Philopator the deliberate plan to annihilate the Jews with the help of his administration and his army. There is no historical basis for the story; in the time of Ptolemy IV the government apparently had no major problems with the  1 Contra the widespread division of the two sections as “prehistory” and “primary history,” as in, for example, KNÖPPLER, Makkabaion III., 1417.

https://doi.org/10.1515/ 9783110596373-014

212  Barbara Schmitz Jews. 2 Nevertheless, the terrifying story, told in vivid detail, of the oppression and planned murder of the Jews in Egypt is attached to Ptolemy IV. It is true that the story repeatedly recounts events that can be verified historically, but as a whole the story must be considered fictional; 3 it is believable precisely because it includes elements that are historical. If one assumes that 3 Maccabees was composed around 100 BCE, 4 then it appears that more than 100 years after the time of King Ptolemy IV Philopator, it was thought appropriate to attach such heinous acts to this king, who was by all accounts blameless towards the Jews. It is noteworthy that already the earliest reception history contains many negative reports about Ptolemy IV. He is described “as a debauched voluptuary, indifferent to affairs of state; and helpless in the hands of selfish and intriguing favorites” 5 (cf. Polybius 5.34; 14.11–12). Already in the oldest sources Ptolemy IV is referred to as “Tryphon,” the “opulent” or the “extravagant one.” 6 In this way the early reception history connected Ptolemy IV to the image of a bad king. It is precisely here, I believe, that we have a starting point for understanding 3 Maccabees. It has often been noticed not only that the king has a central role in 3 Maccabees but also that “kingship is … a powerful subtheme of this text.” 7 Philip Alexander and Loveday Alexander have carefully analyzed the observation that 3 Maccabees “offers an implicit critique of the concept of absolute monarchy,” inasmuch as Ptolemy IV “represents a form of rule typical for Oriental monarchies.” 8 In the reflections that follow I take up this inspired observation, but do so in order to show that the context of this critique is not a reaction against Oriental despotism, but rather is much more located in the Greek-Hellenistic reflection about what the characteristics of a good king are. For this reason my first step will be to outline the characteristics of Hellenistic kingship. Against this background I will then investigate the image of kingship in 3 Maccabees. Finally, the question will be asked what influence this Hellenistic concept of kingship had on the theology of God in 3 Maccabees.

 2 Cf. HUß, Ägypten, 449. 3 JOHNSON, Historical Fictions, 2004; JOHNSON, Third Maccabees, 185–197. 4 See, with a discussion of the relevant literature, ORTH, Makkabaion III, 316–317. 5 HADAS, Maccabees, 30. 6 Cf. Luc. Calumn. 16; FGrHist 260 Porphyry of Tyros F 44; Plin. Nat. VII 208; Ael. Var.hist. XIV 31, examples in HUß, Ägypten, 469. In current scholarship the reign of Ptolemy IV Philopator is not evaluated negatively at all, but rather as thoroughly successful. Moreover, he was an intellectual with great interest in literature and religion. See HUß, Ägypten, 405.417.466–472; similarly HADAS, Maccabees, 30. 7 ALEXANDER/ALEXANDER, Image of the Oriental Monarch, 92. 8 ALEXANDER/ALEXANDER, Image of the Oriental Monarch, 104.

King and God  213

2 Aspects of Hellenistic Kingship Alexander the Great fundamentally and permanently altered not only the political map of the eastern Mediterranean littoral but also the system of political rule. With and following Alexander, kingship imposed itself as a new form of rule, 9 one that had previously—at least in the Greek space—been widely rejected. This first changed with the advent of Alexander and the times following him. In the struggle to succeed him, three independent monarchies arose, ruled by Alexander’s former generals, all of them originally from Macedonia. This led to a problem of legitimation for the new kings, inasmuch as none of them could point to dynastic predecessors. 10 There is evidence for three arguments in favor of legitimacy, which were not mutually exclusive but rather influenced each other. 11 First, legitimacy was based on election, and here the imitation of the divine Alexander played an ever greater role as time went by. 12 Second, legitimacy was based on dynastic and genealogical tradition; in the early generations of the Diadochi connections were made to the Argead dynasty, partly via Alexander but also independently of him. The third principle of legitimacy was the effectiveness, above all as military success, demonstrated by individual monarchs and by which they could make themselves independent of Alexander. Military success became one of the most important elements by which Hellenistic royal rule could be legitimated. 13 Hellenistic kingship was not inherited by nature, i.e., by royal inheritance, nor by just conduct, but rather by the ability to lead an army and to manage political affairs with prudent calculation. In other words, the monarchy was especially dependent on success; rule was directly dependent on the requirement of success. 14

 9 Cf. SCHMITZ, Tradition und (Er)Neuerung, 721–736. 10 On the difficulties of describing Hellenistic royal ideology, see GRUEN, Hellenistic Kingship, 116–125. 11 Cf. EDELMANN, Religiöse Herrschaftslegitimation, 213–230. 12 On the transformation and functionalization of Alexander, see HEUSS, Alexander der Große, 65–104. 13 So also WALBANK, Monarchies and Monarchic Ideas, 63. 14 “…nicht erworben durch die Natur, also die monarchische Erbfolge, noch durch gerechtes Verhalten, sondern durch die Fähigkeit, ein Heer zu führen und die politischen Angelegenheiten mit vernünftiger Kalkulation zu handhaben. Anders gesagt, die Monarchie war besonders erfolgsgebunden, die Herrschaft stand geradezu unter Erfolgszwang.” GEHRKE, Geschichte, 47; on “Erfolgszwang” (the requirement of success), see also GEHRKE, Der siegreiche König, 277.

214  Barbara Schmitz It is no accident, therefore, that Antigonus Monophthalmos was the first, after Alexander, to adopt the title of king following his great victory in 306 at Salamis. The legitimacy of the Hellenistic king is, therefore, grounded in his own person: The king must produce victories, thereby proving his ability (δύναμις), virtue / competence (ἀρετή) and readiness for battle (ἀνδραγαθία). For this reason Hellenistic kings lead wars themselves and personally fight at the front (Cf. Plut. Pyrrh. 7.7ff., 16.11, 22.6ff., 24.5, 30.6ff., 31.3). Dressed in magnificent armor and battle gear they stage their entry into battle (see Plut. Pyrrh. 16.11; Demetr. 21.5f.; 41.6). In contrast to the way the Romans would later conduct their wars, the Hellenistic kings were more likely to pursue limited aims in their wars, which were not aimed at the annihilation of their opponents but rather to make possible the pursuit of new wars. 15 Although the king’s ability to fight is definitely an ancient ideal, 16 it now becomes—as it hadn’t been in the past—the decisive criterion for a good king. The success of a king is now displayed openly: royal might is revealed through great building projects (royal palaces cover approximately one-third of the area of Alexandria), but also through great feasts featuring processions and parades (for example, the Ptolemaia or the great celebration of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in Daphne by Antioch in 166 BCE), 17 and in the king’s glamorous appearance and style of clothing (cf., e.g., Plut. Demetr. 41.4). 18 Also important were the donations, gifts, or reductions in taxes, by which the king reveals himself to be a benefactor (εὐεργέτης) 19 and shows his philanthropy (φιλανθρωπία), which brings him loyalty (εὔνοια), honor (τιμή) and prestige (δόξα). The public display of success included the titles that the kings collected for themselves: the king is described as “savior” (σωτήρ), “benefactor” (εὐεργέτης), “epiphany” (ἐπιφανής), “victor” (e.g., Nikephoros) or “founder” (κτίστης). These titles are found also on coins, for example, which, because of their wide distribution and daily use become valuable pictorial media for the royal display of self.

 15 See on this point WALBANK, Monarchies and Monarchic Ideas, 81. 16 In Homer, for example, the task of the leader is “to be always the best (ἀριστεύειν) and to be superior to the others,” II. 6.208. 17 Interestingly, this celebration had served a counterfactual function: Antiochus IV organized in 166 BCE the greatest spectacle in Hellenistic history, lasting a whole month; not coincidentally, it took place following the “day of Eleusis,” the withdrawal from Egypt that Rome compelled him to make in 168 BCE (Polyb. 30.25f.; Athen. 5.194cff.; 10.439bff.; Diod. 31.16). 18 For the description, see WALBANK, Monarchies and Monarchic Ideas, 67. 19 See on this point BRINGMANN, Der König als Wohltäter, 83–95.

King and God  215

With monarchy as a new form of rule, there arose the need to consider what were the distinguishing characteristics of a good king. 20 It is common knowledge that there was an extensive and wide-ranging peri basileias literature. 21 However, not a single one of these writings has been preserved, leaving aside for a moment the account of the symposium in the Letter of Aristeas. The state of the sources is truly bleak. It is interesting, however, that on the question concerning the marks of a good king, it can be shown that there are many connections between 3 Maccabees and the Letter to Aristeas 22—two writings that, precisely when looking at the king, “represent two sharply different viewpoints.” 23 Since the two writings probably originate in the same period, they attest to what was common knowledge at the time. But how can we reconstruct the tradition-historical connections when none of the peri basileias texts have survived? It is interesting that significant reflections on the marks of a good ruler were formulated already before the time of Alexander. Xenophon (430/425–ca. 355 BCE) in his Cyropaidia, presents the Persian king Cyrus as the ideal ruler, and Isocrates (436–338 BCE) discusses what makes a good king in three speeches Ad Nicoclem, Nicocles, Evagoras). The fourth century before the common era is, however, not only the century in which the political language concerning autocracy was essentially formulated on the fundamental level of basic content, to the extent that it became a blueprint for later ancient authors. 24

In Xenophon’s presentation the oriental king Cyrus becomes the paradeigma of a good king. 25 Already in the first description of Cyrus that precedes the com 20 Cf. the full discussion in SCHMITZ, Concepts of Kingship (forthcoming). 21 Diogenes Laertius ascribes writings with the title “On Kingship” (περὶ βασιλείας) to a long list of authors, e.g., Antisthenes (ca. 445–365 BCE; Diog. Laert. 6.1–19), Persaios of Kition (born ca. 307/306 BCE; Diog. Laert. 7.36), Xenokrates (ca. 396/395–314/313 BCE; Diog. Laert. 4.6–15), etc. 22 Philanthropy (φιλανθρωπία: Arist. 208, 257, 265, 290), self-control (σωφροσύνη: Arist. 237, 248, see 211), bravery (ἀνδρεία: Arist. 199, 281), wisdom (σοφία: Arist. 207, 260), justice (δικαιοσύνη: Arist. 209, 232, 259, 267, 278, 281, etc.), virtue (ἀρετή: Arist. 215, 277, 278), diligence (ἐπιμέλεια: Arist. 245, 282), beneficence (εὐεργεσία: Arist. 205, 249, 273), continence (ἐγκράτεια: Arist. 278), good council and frank speech (Arist. 264), etc. For more discussion, cf. EMMET, Third Book of Maccabees, 156. 23 GRUEN, Heritage and Hellenism, 231. 24 “Dieses vierte vorchristliche Jahrhundert ist aber nicht nur das Jahrhundert, in dem die political language über die Alleinherrschaft auf der inhaltlichen Ebene in ihren basalen Konstanten ganz wesentlich ausformuliert wurde, so daß sie für spätere antike Autoren geradezu eine Blaupause darstellte.” HAAKE, Zwischen Alexander dem Großen und Arcadius, 67.

216  Barbara Schmitz prehensive presentation, his beauty (κάλλος), philanthropy (φιλανθρωπία), love of learning and knowledge (φιλομάθεια) and generosity (φιλοτιμία) are highlighted as his outstanding qualities (Cyr. 1.2.1, cf. Evag. 22–24). In the presentation that follows, these character traits are taken up repeatedly. 26 The notion of Cyrus’ philanthropy (φιλανθρωπία) is a “characteristic feature,” 27 that is also found in Isocrates (Evag. 43; ad Nic. 15). In the later Hellenistic conception of kingship philanthropy becomes the central 28 topos and plays an important role in the self-presentation of the Hellenistic kings. 29 Additional virtues named in the Cyropaedia are: self-mastery (σωφροσύνη), justice (δικαιοσύνη), continence or self-control (ἐγκράτεια), bravery (ἀνδρεία), virtue (ἀρετή), beneficence / giftgiving (εὐεργεσία), solicitude (ἐπιμέλεια), modesty / moderation (μετριότης) as well as the importance of good “friends” and advisers, the seeking of good advice and to be able to accept criticism, and to promote frank speech (παρρησία, cf. also Evag. 39 and 44). Like Xenophon, Isocrates was a well-known and widely read author also in later times. He too promoted, already in the period before Alexander the Great, good kingship (in contrast to tyranny) and through his widely read publications he prepared the way for the Hellenistic conception of kingship. Evagoras is an encomium, a panegyric on King Evagoras I of Cyprus, who had recently died. 30 A key goal of the encomium is to clarify the difference between a bad tyrant and a good king (Evag. 25–26, 32, 34, 39, 40, 41, 66, 71 etc.). In Ad Nicocles, Isocrates stresses the importance of frank speech (παρρησία) and the freedom to criticize friend and foe (ad Nic. 3, see also 27–28), which he sees as the most fundamental difference between “autocrat” and “tyrant” (ad Nic. 4). Unlike a tyrant, a good king is led by the utmost benevolence (πρόνοια), by a healthy lifestyle and a virtuous life (ἀρετή: ad Nic. 6, 8). To be a good lord means to love both the people (φιλάνθρωπον) and the polis (φιλόπολιν, ad Nic. 15; cf. Evag. 43) and to take care of both (ἐπιμέλεια). In Nicocles’s speech the issue is again legitimacy, which flows from the king’s ability to achieve results (cf. ad Nic. 29). These achievements are—according to the Nicocles portrayed by Isocrates—grounded in the king’s virtues (ἀρετή), of which self-control  25 So also DUE, Cyropaedia, 146. 26 Cf. Cyr. 1.4.1, 3; 4.2.10; 8.2.1; 8.4.7–8; 8.7.25; towards a subordinate cf. 3.1.34; 3.2.12; 3.3.45; 4.4.6; 7.1.41; 7.2.10; 7.5.73; 8.1.1; 8.4.34; 8.7.25. 27 DUE, Cyropaedia, 163. 28 So also MURRAY, Philosophy and Monarchy, 13–28, 24. 29 Cf. SANDRIDGE, Loving humanity, 44, 57, 120. 30 ALEXIOU, Euagoras, 51–64.

King and God  217

(σωφροσύνη) and justice (δικαιοσύνη) are especially stressed (ad Nic. 29, cf. 30). These two virtues are developed separately at greater length: justice (δικαιοσύνη) in Nicocles 31–35 and self-control (σωφροσύνη) in Nicocles 36–41. Xenophon and Isocrates initiated the discourse about the good king in the 4th century BCE and shaped it decisively. Both authors were read widely; their views were taken up during the time of Alexander as well as after him and became seminal for the Hellenistic ideology of kingship. Xenophon and Isocrates together, therefore, form the tradition-historical context from which the later peri basileias literature could have drawn, as did the writer of the Letter of Aristeas. The conceptions of Xenophon and Isocrates function as an early model. Against this background, we will now investigate how Ptolemy IV Philopator is portrayed in 3 Maccabees.

3 King Ptolemy IV Philopator in 3 Maccabees Ptolemy IV is introduced in the story as a successful and victorious king. Numerically his forces are inferior to those of his stronger opponent, Antiochus III, who bears the epithet megas, “the Great,” but Ptolemy IV is the victor in the battle of Raphia (1:1–7). This victory is no ordinary military success; after the battle of Issos (301 BCE), it is the greatest battle of that time. With the victory, therefore, Ptolemy reveals himself to be a victorious, successful king, who lives up to his name “Ptolemaios,” “the warrior.” He is victorious not only on the battlefield; with the help of the canny Dositheus he also escapes Theodotus’ plot to have him killed 31 (1:2–3). Like a good king, after his victory he visits the surrounding cities in order to “boost their morale” (παρακαλέσαι, 1:6) and cheer them up (εὐθαρσής, 1:7; cf. Polyb. 5.86). For this reason he is characterized as Philanthrop and Euergetes and is generally seen in completely positive terms. 32 In addition to the other cities, Ptolemy visits Jerusalem. But in Jerusalem the good intentions of the king, who is initially received favorably by the people, become a problem. He not only makes an offering to the Most High God (τῷ μεγίστῳ θεῷ, 1:9), he decides to enter the Temple (εἰς τὸν ναὸν εἰσελθεῖν 1:10). The people of Jerusalem are horrified and try with various arguments to dis-

 31 Collins sees here an instance of subtle irony: An apostate Jew saves the king, who then initiates a persecution of the Jews: COLLINS, 3 Maccabees, 918. 32 So also RAJAK, The Angry Tyrant, 121, and CROY, 3 Maccabees, 38.

218  Barbara Schmitz suade him. But the king is unperturbed and insists on his desire (1:11–15). Here is the crux of the whole narrative: the question—is the king allowed to enter the Temple, i.e., the Holy of Holies of the Temple?—is at the heart not only of the first section of the narrative (1:1–2:24) but also of the second (2:25–7:22). In the decree ordering the arrest of the Jews Ptolemy names the events in Jerusalem as the decisive reason for all that follows (cf. 3:17–18). What is the problem? It seems to me that here it is not yet a question of a defiant attitude on the part of the king, but rather a conflict between different cultural and cultic constructs. While it is not a problem for the Ptolemy of 3 Maccabees to enter the temple of another deity in the context of the cult of the θεοὶ φιλοπάτορες, 33 from the Jewish perspective, a pagan was forbidden from entering the Temple on pain of death. 34 Even Jews were not permitted to enter the Holy of Holies, only the High Priest was allowed to enter, once a year (1.11; cf. Exod 30:10; Lev 16:34; Jos. Bell. 1.152; Philo, Embassy 306–307; Heb. 9:7). There is a clash of different cultural, theological, and cultic traditions and constructs. What for the Jewish side is sacrilege appears to be incomprehensible to Ptolemy IV. That it is not from the perspective of the king a matter of improper behavior is clear also from the term used for God: the king presents an offering, as stated explicitly in 1:9, to the Most High God (τῷ μεγίστῳ θεῷ). From the point of view of the Ptolemaic king, that is, the sense of an interpretatio graeca, the chief deity must be intended. It is his duty to honor this deity. Moreover, it should be noted that the Ptolemy of 3 Maccabees visits the temple without any hostile or violent intentions (such as robbery, plunder etc. Cf., for example, Heliodorus in 2 Macc 3). From the Jewish point of view, the behavior of the king is not acceptable at all, not to mention his intransigence. It is interesting that it is at this point that negative evaluations of the king begin to appear in the narrative: 35 His motives are now described as “the mad impulse of one so wickedly bent on seeing it through” (1:16), he acts “wickedly” (1:21), with an “arrogant

 33 The desire to enter a temple was apparently quite common among conquerors: Alexander the Great visited the Temple of Zeus-Ammon in the Siwa Oasis (331 BCE; cf. Arrian, Anab. 3.3– 4) and according to Josephus also the Jerusalem Temple (Jos. Ant. 11.329–339). The PithomStele shows that Ptolemy IV also visited temples in Syria (according to Pompeius; cf. Jos. Bell. 1.152). Another close parallel is the story of Heliodorus’ entry into the Temple (2 Macc 3). 34 Cf. KNÖPPLER, Makkabaion III., 1424. 35 Cf. other descriptions of him as profane and godless, one who arms himself with audacity and military power (καταπονουμένοις ὑπὸ ἀνοσίου καὶ βεβήλου θράσει καὶ σθένει πεφρυαγμένου 2:2), an audacious and godless man (ὁ θρασὺς καὶ βέβηλος 2:14), “who had become exceedingly puffed up with pride and presumption” (τὸν ὕβρει καὶ θράσει μεγάλως 2:21), etc.

King and God  219

mind” (1:25), and is “bold and dismissive” (1:26), one who defies the advice of his closest advisors (1:27). In the second section (2:25–7:22) there are two very different evaluations of the king: one comes from the king himself, the second is offered from the perspective of the narrator, i.e., the characters. In three instances the narrator offers a window into the king’s thinking: in his letter containing the decree against the Jews (3:12–29); in his speech berating the court courtiers (“friends,” 36 6:24–28); and in the letter in which the king withdraws his first letter and promises the Jews they can return and that they will receive compensation (7:1–9). In his first letter (3:12–29) the king stresses that the successful conduct of the military expedition was not only the result of the support of the gods (3:14) but also shows his “clemency” (ἐπιείκεια) and “beneficence” (φιλανθρωπία 3:15). He treated the people well (εὖ ποιῆσαί 3:15) and granted the temples enormous revenues (3:16). So also in Jerusalem, where the people only appeared to welcome him, but where in fact he met with insincerity (3:17). When he wanted to enter the Temple, and provide it with the most beautiful offerings, he was prevented because of the arrogance of the people (3:17–18). The Jews thereby rejected his protection (ἀλκή) and benevolence (φιλανθρωπία) (3:18). He was met with ill-will (δυσμένεια), even though he had always shown himself to be a “benefactor” (εὐεργέτης) (3:19) and had always acted with benevolence towards all peoples (φιλανθρώπως 3:20). His offer to give Jews citizenship (πολιτεία) in Alexandria (3:21) was rejected (this is a willful [re]interpretation of the events!, 3:22–23). Because the Jews were hostile, it was the king’s duty to take precautions in order to protect his kingdom (3:24). He will therefore take savage measures (3:24–25), in order to restore a time of stability and proper order (ἐν εὐσταθείᾳ καὶ τῇ βελτίστῃ διαθέσει 3:26). This (very idiosyncratic) view of the events is not only “a skillful piece of pro-Ptolemaic and anti-Jewish propaganda,” 37 but also shows that the king sees himself as a good king measured against the expectations of Hellenistic times; the benevolence of the king is mentioned no less than three times (3:15, 18, 20). This point of view continues in the two further self-presentations—in different ways.

 36 The advisors who surround the king are referred to by the official court title “friends” (2:26; 5:3, 19, 26, 29, 34, 44 etc., cf. also 2:23, “friends and bodyguards,” φίλοι καὶ σωματοφύλακες and 2:25, “drinking companions and comrades,” συμπόταικαὶ ἑταίροι). Historically it appears that the “friends” had a striking degree of influence on Ptolemy IV, cf. HUß, Ägypten, 458. 37 CROY, 3 Maccabees, 65.

220  Barbara Schmitz The decisive salvation of the Jews through God’s intervention (6:18–19) provokes the king to completely renounce his earlier position: he now blames his friends for leading him to make the wrong decisions – a very convenient excuse (6:24–28): the “friends” have governed badly (παραβασιλεύω), had even exceeded the tyrants (τύραννοι), had attempted to rob the king of his dignity and his life’s breath, had acted secretly and did not do what was good for the kingdom; he, on the other hand, was a “benefactor” (εὐεργέτης 6:24). In the second letter (7:1–9) the king again blames the “friends” for their wickedness and does not take responsibility himself (7:3–4). On the contrary: he acts mildly towards all people (πρὸς ἅπαντας ἀνθρώπους ἐπιείκειαν 7:6). A very different view of the king is given not only in the pervasive negative evaluations, 38 but also via other figures that appear in the narrative: the “Greeks” in the city, for example, judge the decree (διάθεσις) of the king to be “tyrannical” (3:8). 39 The narrator twice compares the cruelty of Ptolemy with that of the Sicilian tyrant Phalaris (5:20, 42). Phalaris (ca. 570–555 BCE) ruled Akragas on the west coast of Sicily and was known already in antiquity for his cruelty (cf. Cicero, Off. 2.7.26; Att. 7.12.2). It was said that Phalaris had a golden steer made, in the innards of which he imprisoned his opponents in order to then roast them over a fire; the screams of the tortured could be heard by those standing by and sounded like the screams of a real steer (cf. Polyb. 12.26; Diod. Sic. 9.19.1). It is noteworthy that the comparison was made not with an oriental but with a Greek despot. This shows how thoroughly 3 Maccabees is rooted in the Greek discourse about the qualities of a good king. The next step is to ask what effect this discourse may have had on the speech about God in 3 Maccabees.

 38 Cf. 2:26, 27; 5:47 etc. 39 The word “tyrant” (τύραννος) is taken up again in 6:24 in the context of the method of rule practice by the “friends.”

King and God  221

4 The Characterization of God in 3 Maccabees There are long lists of divine attributes in 3 Maccabees, 40 which stand out in comparison with biblical texts and other texts of the same period. 41 In its speech about God, 3 Maccabees displays a dense nominal style, in which God is described by various titles and labels. 42 The longest series is found at the beginning of the prayer in 2:2–3: 43 κύριε κύριε βασιλεῦ τῶν οὐρανῶν καὶ δέσποτα πάσης κτίσεως ἅγιε ἐν ἁγίοις μόναρχε παντοκράτωρ πρόσχες ἡμῖν καταπονουμένοις ὑπὸ ἀνοσίου καὶ βεβήλου θράσει καὶ σθένει πεφρυαγμένου σὺ γὰρ ὁ κτίσας τὰ πάντα καὶ τῶν ὅλων ἐπικρατῶν δυνάστης δίκαιος εἶ καὶ τοὺς ὕβρει καὶ ἀγερωχίᾳ τι πράσσοντας κρίνεις

Lord, Lord, king of the heavens and sovereign of all creation, holy among the holy ones, sole ruler, almighty, hearken unto us, who are being oppressed by a vile and unholy man, grown insolent with presumption and power. For you, the founder of all things and the governor of all, are a just ruler, and you judge those whose deeds are marked by pride and arrogance.

Some of the designations for God appear rarely in the LXX 44 or are hapax legomena. 45 Moreover, it is striking that many of these titles are specific to the LXX (“almighty”, παντοκράτωρ 2:2, 8; 5:7; 6:2, 18, 28) 46 and, moreover, have their  40 Besides the one in 2:2–3 there are in 3 Maccabees other lists: “called out with an irrepressible cry and with tears to the Almighty Lord, Ruler of every power, their merciful God and Father” (5:7); “the manifest God, Lord, King of kings” (5:35); “O king, dread sovereign, most high, almighty God, who govern all creation with compassion” (6:2) and “the sons of the Almighty, heavenly, living god” (6:28). 41 Lists of divine titles can be found in Ps 17:2–3LXX; Neh 9:32; 2 Macc 1:24–25; Jdt 9:11–12. But none of these is as long as the one in 2:2. 42 A list and categorization of those that appear in 3 Maccabees can be found in KNÖPPLER, Gottesvorstellung, 209–221, who counts “more than 100 names for God” (213). 43 On the prayer, cf. CORLEY, Divine Sovereignty and Power, 359–386. 44 So, e.g., “holy among the holy” (ἅγιος ἐν ἁγίοις 2:2, 21, cf. Isa 57:15LXX diff. MT; cf. 2 Macc 14:36) or “rescuer” (ῥύστης, 7:23, cf. by way of beginning Ps 17:3, 49; 69:6; 143:2LXX). 45 So “sole ruler” (μόναρχος, 2:2), “the primal one” (προπάτωρ, 2:21), “dread sovereign” (μεγαλοκράτωρ, 6:2) or “you who hate insolence”, 6:9. 46 παντοκράτωρ is used in the LXX above all in those texts that are not translations; for example, 2 Macc 1:25; 3:30; 5:20; 6:26; 7:35, 38; 8:11, 18, 24; 15:8, 32; cf. 3:22; 2:2, 8; 5:7; 6:2, 18, 28; Jdt 4:13; 8:13; 15:10; 16:5, 17.

222  Barbara Schmitz origins in a political context; for example, “sole ruler” (μόναρχος) or “savior” (σωτήρ: 6:29, 32; 7:16). Against the background of the Hellenistic conception of kingship clearly evident in 3 Maccabees, the question arises whether this conception has influenced not only the speech about the king but also the speech about God. This possibility will be investigated in what follows via three selected aspects: the epiphany motif, the understandings of creation and the designation as savior.

4.1 God as the Epiphany God saves the Jews in 3 Maccabees by means of two epiphanies (3 Macc. 2:21– 22; 6:18–19). 47 It is precisely in the final rescue in 6:18 that the constantly repeated plea of the Jews to God in their desperate need, that God should show himself (“show, reveal,” ἐπιφαίνω, cf. 2:9; 6:4.9), is heard. Thereafter God does in fact “show” himself, in that he—the beginning of the epiphany—reveals his holy face (ἐπιφάνας τὸ ἅγιον αὐτοῦ πρόσωπον, 6:18, similarly in 6:39), the emerging angels cause such an uproar among the elephants that the animals destroy their own army. The God of Israel thereby emerges victorious out of both of the two conflicts with King Ptolemy that are narrated in 3 Maccabees; a vanquished king and defeated army is left behind. Against the background of the Hellenistic royal ideology sketched above, this has a distinct and familiar ring: the real victor and king is not the brilliant victor of Raphia, but rather the epiphany of the God of Israel in this victory. This fact is especially revealing, since “Epiphanes” (ἐπιφανής) is a common epithet for Hellenistic kings, known in Biblical literature above all because of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (1 Macc 1:10; 10:1; 2 Macc 2:20; 4:7; 10:9, 13; 4 Macc. 4:15). It appears that Antiochus IV (175– 164 BCE) adopted this epithet after his successful and uncontested seizure of power, when he was acclaimed by the population of Antiochus with this name (App. Syr. 45.234). 48 Not long after the name was ascribed to him it begins to appear on coins: 49 2 Maccabees not only uses the epithet ἐπιφανής for Antiochus in prominent passages (2 Macc 2:20; 4:7; 10:9, 13), it also makes of the group of motifs connected to the lexeme ἐπιφαν- a decisive “key word.” 50 This is  47 On epiphanies and their tradition-historical location in Greece, see SCHMITZ, Antiochus Epiphanes, 253–279. Cf. Heliodorus in 2 Macc 3 and Antiochus’ death in 2 Macc 9. 48 Cf. on this point EHLING, Untersuchungen, 97. 49 Cf. MØRKHOLM, Studies in the Coinage of Antiochus IV.; LE RIDER, Antioche de Syrie; HOUGHTON / LORBER, Seleucid Coins. 50 So HABICHT, 2. Makkabäerbuch, 187.

King and God  223

clear, for example, in the fact that six epiphanies are adumbrated in the foreword (2 Macc 2:21; 3:24–26, 31–34; 5:1–4; 10:29–30; 11:8; 12:22; 15:11–16, 25–36) in which God intervenes in events, usually via handsome, strong, combat-ready young men in shining armor, and thereby helps the Maccabees to victory. Since the 5th century the word “epiphany” (ἐπιφάνεια) referred, in Greece, to a sudden and unexpected appearance, above all the sudden appearance of an enemy in a military engagement, and later is also used to refer the saving intervention of a divine figure. 51 In the victory achieved by God’s intervention via an epiphany, the God of Israel reveals himself as the true and decisive ruler (δυνάστης, 2 Macc 3:24; 12:15, 28, cf. 3:28, 38). The story that begins with Antiochus IV Epiphanes ends, therefore, with the God of Israel as kyrios epiphanes (2 Macc 15:34). He is thereby given—as in 3 Maccabees—the features that distinguish the new type of Hellenistic ruler: he is victorious and shows himself therein as the Epiphanes.

4.2 God as κτίστης Among the less well known but also important epithets of the Hellenistic kings is κτίστης, “Founder.” The founding of cities belongs to the deeds by which Hellenistic rulers distinguished themselves. By doing so, they could attach themselves to the tradition of the founding of Greek colonies and cities outside of Greece, a common practice since the 8th and 7th century. Whereas the earlier foundings were undertaken in the name of the home city after the Delphic oracle had been consulted and were under the leadership of an οἰκιστής, “colony founder, founder of a city” (from time to time the title ἀρχηγέτης was also used), the idea of founding a city changed in Hellenistic times. The founding of cities is now something reserved for kings and is no longer initiated by mother cities. 52 To describe this activity, the term κτίστης, which is first securely attested in the 4th century BCE, begins to be used. In Egypt one can point not only to Alexandria ad Aegyptum but also to the many places that have Ptolemaios in their names. Beginning in Hellenistic times κτίστης becomes the usual term. Antiochus IV, for example, who founded a whole series of cities, is designated a κτίστης in a Greek inscription (θεὸς σωτὴρ τῆς Ἀσίας καὶ κτίστης τῆς πόλεως OGIS 253). 53 This widely discussed inscription shows that κτίστης, like Soter,

 51 PRITCHETT, The Greek State of War, 11–47. 52 See also BONS / PASSONI DELL’ACQUA, κτίζω, 173–187; CASEVITZ, Vocabulaire, 13–72. 53 A similar inscription has been found referring to Eumenes II: σωτὴρ καὶ εὐεργέτης καὶ κτίστης τῆς πόλεως (OGIS 301) cf. LESCHHORN, Gründer der Stadt, 241.

224  Barbara Schmitz Epiphanes or Euergetes, is used as a kind of honorific but unlike the latter never became an official title or a cultic name—and therefore never appears on coins, for example. The epithet κτίστης is more likely to be used in connection with concrete actions that the founder has undertaken on behalf of the city. In 3 Maccabees God is described as “sovereign of all creation” (δέσποτα πάσης κτίσεως, 2:2), “the founder of all things” (ὁ κτίσας τὰ πάντα, 2:3), “ruler of all creation” (τῷ τῆς ἁπάσης κτίσεως δυναστεύοντι, 2:7; cf. 2:9; 5:11; 6:2). In the context of the Hellenistic conception of kingship the question arises whether these descriptions were not understood or heard not primarily in the usual theological sense of creation but rather much more (also) in terms of their connotations of the royal founding of cities (cf. similarly Jdt 9:12; 2 Macc 1:24; 7:23; 13:14; 4 Macc. 5:25): the God of Israel reveals himself not only as the founder of individual cities but as the founder of the whole world (cf. 2:2, 3).

4.3 God as σωτήρ Another name that Hellenistic kings used as an epithet is Soter (σωτήρ). The term σωτήρ is used to refer to humans but also gods (above all Zeus, Apollo, Asclepios) who have intervened a particular situation in a saving way. 54 Typical situations where one needed saving included trouble at sea, the danger of war and sickness. In a military battle a person’s ability and action to save would be especially apparent. This conception of a saving intervention is often connected to the idea of an epiphany. The sudden appearance and helpful intervention 55 arouses astonishment, wonder and joy among people, who out of thankfulness give the savior who was helpful the title σωτήρ. The traditional combination of the concept of salvation in a time of need and the resulting honoring of the σωτήρ was ideally suited for application to the Hellenistic kings. The first to be included in the ranks of the saving divinities were Antigonos Monophthalmos and his son Demetrius, even before they began to use the title of king. In the period after these two, there is a marked increase in the use of this epithet for Hellenistic kings (cf., for example, Ptolemy I Soter). The title is combined with others, very commonly with Epiphanes or Theos. In 3 Maccabees God is designated as “savior” at the end of the narrative: he is the Soter Israel (ὁσωτήρ, 6:29, 32; 7:16,cf. 6:13, 33, 36; 7:16, 22; and ὁ ῥύστης Ισραηλ, 7:23).

 54 Cf. on this issue JUNG, ΣΩΤΗΡ. 55 On this understanding of epiphany see LÜHRMANN, Epiphaneia, 185–199.

King and God  225

These three examples show that the notion of Hellenistic kingship has also changed the speech about God in 3 Maccabees: by adopting Hellenistic concepts of kingship that ascribe special importance to military victory and the founding of cities and that are expressed in epithets like “Epiphanes” and “Soter” etc., new elements are taken up into the speech about God. These new concepts are political, inasmuch as they are used to describe Hellenistic kingship. The “new” type of Hellenistic ruler, who manifests his identity as king through his success and his victories, who openly displays his sovereignty, his wealth, his benevolence and philanthropy, is discovered to be a new reservoir for speech about God; this speech is reflected upon and elements of it are integrated into the speech about God. This process goes hand in hand with a heightening of God’s power, by which he omnipotently brings about all that is, leading to a stress on the soteriological function of his kingship. In and of themselves, none of these motifs are new, but nevertheless by being taken over and refined from the ideal of Hellenistic kingship they become more precise and gain a new profile and new connotations.

5 Conclusion The book 3 Maccabees not only tells the story of a conflict in Egypt that gets out of hand and becomes a deadly threat for the Jewish community. Much more, 3 Maccabees portrays sovereignty and power on the political and theological level. This study of 3 Maccabees has produced two conclusions: First: In 3 Maccabees the question concerning a good king is posed within the context of Hellenistic times using Ptolemy IV Philopator as an example. In Greece after the time of Alexander, kingship is accepted as a form of rule within Greek self-understanding, one that is even valued under certain conditions. It was taken for granted that the king would be successful in both internal and external affairs and that such success was the way that the king legitimated his rule. The king reveals himself to be Soter and, as an epiphany, Savior in a time of need, concerned about the welfare of his subjects and showing philanthropy. His successes are celebrated in festivals and visible in the founding of cities. Initially 3 Maccabees portrays Ptolemy as a successful, positive Hellenistic ruler who then loses all sense of propriety during the conflicts over his entry into the Jerusalem Temple, even though he knows—as is clear from his speeches and letters in the narrative—how a good king should in fact conduct himself. Thus 3 Maccabees uses the figure of Ptolemy IV Philopator to take issue with the ideal

226  Barbara Schmitz of Hellenistic kingship and narrates how a good king should behave, that is, how he should not behave. 56 Second: Like other Jewish writings from the Hellenistic period, 3 Maccabees takes issue with Hellenistic royal ideology not only on a political level but also on a theological level. As can be observed already in Assyrian and Persian times, in Hellenistic times too the political models current at the time are adopted and made the subject of theological reflection. In 3 Maccabees the God of Israel is presented as the one true good king, who as Soter saves his people in their time of greatest need. The belief that God reveals himself in an epiphany is confessed not only in prayers (2:9; 5:8, 35, 51), but is visible in the form of two epiphanies (2:21–22; 6:18–21.39), by which God intervenes decisively to save the Egyptian Jews. At the end of the story, therefore, the many divine epithets in the story—above all the long series in 2:2–3—are fulfilled: the God of Israel shows himself to be Lord (κύριος), king (βασιλεύς), master (δεσπότης), the sole ruler (μόναρχος), omnipotent (παντοκράτωρ) and a just ruler (δυνάστης δίκαιος). His successes are celebrated in a 40-day festival of salvation (6:30–40), a festival of wine to celebrate the salvation (7:18), and an annual festival (7:19). In 3 Maccabees God shows himself therefore as the decisive savior (σωτήρ, 6:29, 32; 7:16). It comes as no surprise, therefore, that 3 Maccabees ends with a hymn of praise to God as the redeemer (ῥύστης) of Israel (7:23). In other words, 3 Maccabees not only thematizes the conflict between a Hellenistic king who uses his power in hybrid ways, but also incorporates in a concentrated form the conception of a good (Hellenistic) ruler into the conception of God as king and ruler.

Bibliography ALEXANDER, Philip / ALEXANDER, Loveday, The Image of the Oriental Monarch in the Third Book of Maccabees, in: T. Rajak et al. (eds.), Jewish Perspectives on Hellenistic Rulers (Hellenistic Culture and Society 50), Berkeley 2007, 92–109. ALEXANDER, Philip S., 3 Maccabees, in: J.D.G. Dunn and J.W. Rogerson (eds.), Commentary on the Bible, Grand Rapids 2003, 865–875. ALEXIOU, Evangelos, Der “Euagoras” des Isokrates. Ein Kommentar (Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte 101), Berlin 2010.

 56 When the king faithfully fulfils his role as king, then the Jews are always portrayed as loyal subjects devoted to the king (1:3; 3:3, 6, 21; 6:25–26; 7:7).

King and God  227

BONS, Eberhard / PASSONI DELL’ACQUA, Anna, A Sample Article: κτίζω–κτίσις–κτίσμα–κτίστης, in: E. Bons and J. Joosten (eds.), Septuagint Vocabulary. Pre-History, Usage, Reception (SBLSCS 58), Atlanta 2011, 173–187. BRINGMANN, Klaus, Der König als Wohltäter. Beobachtungen und Überlegungen zur hellenistischen Monarchie, in: J. Bleicken (ed.), Colloquium aus Anlass des 80. Geburtstags von Alfred Heuss (FAS 13), 1993, 83–95. CASEVITZ, Michel, Le vocabulaire de la colonisation en grec ancien, Paris 1985. COLLINS, John J., 3 Maccabees, in: J.L. Mays (ed.), The Harper’s Bible Commentary, San Francisco 1988, 916–921. CORLEY, Jeremy, Divine Sovereignty and Power in the High-Priestly Prayer of 3 Macc 2:1–20, in: R. Egger-Wenzel and J. Corley (eds.), Prayer from Tobit to Qumran (DCLY 2004), Berlin 2004, 359–386. COUSLAND, J.R.C., Reversal, Recidivism and Reward in 3 Maccabees: Structure and Purpose, JSJ 34 (2003) 39–51. CROY, N. Clayton, 3 Maccabees (Septuaginta Commentary Series), Leiden 2006. DUE, Bodil, The Cyropaedia. Xenophon’s Aims and Methods, Aarhus 1989. EDELMANN, Babett, Religiöse Herrschaftslegitimation in der Antike. Die religiöse Legitimation orientalisch-ägyptischer und griechisch-hellenistischer Herrscher im Vergleich (PHAROS – Studien zur griechisch-römischen Antike 20), St. Katharinen 2007. EHLING, Kay, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der späten Seleukiden (164–63 v.Chr.). Vom Tod des Antiochos IV. bis zur Einrichtung der Provinz Syria unter Pompeius (Historia Einzelschriften 196), Stuttgart 2008. EMMET, Cyril W., The Third Book of Maccabees, in: R.H. Charles (ed.), APOT I, Oxford 1913, 155– 173. GEHRKE, Hans-Joachim, Der siegreiche König. Überlegungen zur hellenistischen Monarchie, AkuG 64 (1982) 247–277. GEHRKE, Hans-Joachim, Geschichte des Hellenismus (2nd ed.), Oldenburg 1995. GRUEN, Erich S., Hellenistic Kingship: Puzzles, Problems, and Possibilities, in: Per Bilde et al. (eds.), Aspects of Hellenistic Kingship, Aarhus 1996, 116–125. GRUEN, Erich S., Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition, Berkeley 1998. HAAKE, Matthias, Zwischen Alexander dem Großen und Arcadius, von Anaxarchos von Abdera zu Synesios von Kyrene. Die Gattung Über das Königtum im Kontext antiker Alleinherrschaft – eine Skizze, in: Questio 11 / 2011. Philosophy and the Books. From Antiquity to the XXIth Century, Turnhout 2011, 65–82. HABICHT, Christian, 2. Makkabäerbuch (JSHRZ 1,3), Gütersloh 1976. HADAS, Moses, The Third and Fourth Books of Maccabees (Jewish Apocryphal Literature 3), New York 1953. HANHART, Robert, Maccabaeorum Liber III (Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum 9/3), Göttingen 1980. HANHART, Robert, Zum Text des 2. und 3. Makkabäerbuches. Probleme der Überlieferung, der Auslegung und der Ausgabe, Göttingen 1961. HEUSS, Alfred, Alexander der Große und die politische Theologie des Altertums, Antike und Abendland 4 (1954) 65–104, reprinted in: H. Kloft (ed.), Ideologie und Herrschaft in der Antike, Darmstadt 1979, 121–188. HOUGHTON, Arthur / LORBER, Catherine, Seleucid Coins. A Comprehensive Catalogue, Vol II: Seleucus IV through Antiochus XIII, New York 2008. HUß, Werner, Ägypten in hellenistischer Zeit (332–30 v. Chr.), München 2001.

228  Barbara Schmitz JOHNSON, Sara R., Historical Fictions and Hellenistic Jewish Identity. Third Maccabees in Its Cultural Context, Berkeley 2004. JOHNSON, Sara R., Third Maccabees: Historical Fictions and the Shaping of Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Period, in: J.A. Brant (ed.), Ancient Fiction. The Matrix of Early Christian and Jewish Narrative, Atlanta 2005, 185–197. JUNG, Franz, ΣΩΤΗΡ. Studien zur Rezeption eines hellenistischen Ehrentitels im Neuen Testament (Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen 39), Münster 2002. KNÖPPLER, Thomas, Die Gottesvorstellung des 3. Makkabäerbuches, in: H. Lichtenberger and G.S. Oegema (eds.), Jüdische Schriften in ihrem antik-jüdischen und urchristlichen Kontext (Studien zu den JSHRZ 1), Gütersloh 2002, 209–221. KNÖPPLER, Thomas, Makkabaion III. Das dritte Buch der Makkabäer, in: W. Kraus and M. Karrer (eds.), Septuaginta Deutsch. Das griechische Alte Testament in deutscher Übersetzung, Stuttgart 2009, 717–729. KNÖPPLER, Thomas, Makkabaion III. Das dritte Buch der Makkabäer, in: M. Karrer (ed.), Septuaginta Deutsch. Erläuterungen und Kommentare zum griechischen Alten Testament. Band I: Genesis bis Makkabäer, Stuttgart 2011, 1417–1444. LE RIDER, George, Antioche de Syrie sous les Séleucides. Corpus des Monnaies d'or et d'argent, Vol. I, Paris 1999. LESCHHORN, Wolfgang, Gründer der Stadt. Studien zu einem politisch-religiösen Phänomen der griechischen Geschichte (Palingenesia 20), Wiesbaden 1984. LÜHRMANN, Dieter, Epiphaneia. Zur Bedeutungsgeschichte eines griechischen Wortes, in: G. Jeremias (ed.), Tradition und Glaube. Das frühe Christentum in seiner Umwelt (FS K.G. Kuhn), Göttingen 1971, 185–199. MÉLÈZE MODRZEJEWSKI, Joseph, Troisième livre des Maccabées (La Bible d’Alexandrie 15,3), Paris 2008. MØRKHOLM, Otto, Studies in the Coinage of Antiochus IV. of Syria, Kopenhagen 1963. MURRAY, Oswyn, Philosophy and Monarchy in the Hellenistic World, in: T. Rajak et al. (eds.), Jewish Perspectives on Hellenistic Rulers (Hellenistic Culture and Society 50), Berkeley 2007, 13–28. ORTH, Wolfgang, Makkabaion III / Das dritte Buch der Makkabäer, in: S. Kreuzer (ed.), Einleitung in die Septuaginta, Gütersloh 2016, 314–321. PASSONI DELL ACQUA, Anna, Le preghiere dell III libro dei Maccabei: genere letterario e tematica: RivBib 43 (1995) 135–179. PRITCHETT, Kendrick William, The Greek State of War, Part III: Religion, Berkeley 1979. RAJAK, Tessa, The Angry Tyrant, in: T. Rajak et al. (eds.), Jewish Perspectives on Hellenistic Rulers (Hellenistic Culture and Society 50), Berkeley 2007, 110–127. SANDRIDGE, Norman B., Loving humanity, Learning, and Being Honored: The foundation of Leadership in Xenophons’ Education of Cyrus, Cambridge 2012. SCHMITZ, Barbara, Antiochus Epiphanes und der epiphane Gott. Gefühle, Emotionen und Affekte im Zweiten Makkabäerbuch, in: R. Egger-Wenzel and J. Corley (eds.), Emotions from Ben Sira to Paul (DCLY 2011), Berlin 2012, 253–279. SCHMITZ, Barbara, Gott als Figur in der deuterokanonischen Literatur, in: U. Eisen and I. Müllner (eds.), Gott als Figur – Narratologische Analysen biblischer Texte und ihrer Rezeption (HBS 82), Freiburg 2016, 217–237. SCHMITZ, Barbara, Tradition und (Er)Neuerung. Die Rede von Gott in jüdisch-hellenistischer Literatur, ThLZ 141 (2016) 721–736.

King and God  229

SCHMITZ, Barbara, Concepts of Kingship in Aristeas, Xenophon’s Cyropaedia and Isocrates’ Speeches, in: S. Kreuzer et al. (eds.), Die Septuaginta: Geschichte – Wirkung – Relevanz (WUNT), Tübingen (forthcoming). WALBANK, F.W., Monarchies and Monarchic Ideas, in: F.W. Walbank et al. (eds.), Cambridge Ancient History Vol. 7,1, Cambridge 1984, 62–100.

List of contributors Samuel L. Adams, Union Presbyterian Seminary, Richmond, VA (USA) Sean Adams, University of Glasgow (UK) Ibolya Balla, Reformed Theological Seminary, Pápa (Hungary) Jeremy Corley, St Patrick’s College, Maynooth (Ireland) Kristin De Troyer, Paris Lodron University, Salzburg (Austria) Greg Schmidt Goering, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA (USA) Matthew Goff, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL (USA) Bradley C. Gregory, The Catholic University of America, Washington, DC (USA) Tobias Nicklas, University of Regensburg (Germany) Eric D. Reymond, Yale Divinity School, New Haven, CT (USA) Barbara Schmitz, Julius Maximilian University, Würzburg (Germany) Emanuel Tov, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem (Israel) Géza G. Xeravits, Selye J. University, Komárno (Slovakia) József Zsengellér, Károli Gáspár University of the Reformed Church, Budapest (Hungary)

Index Aaron 6, 8, 12, 13, 32, 35, 46, 48, 48 n 70, 50, 53, 62, 143 n 8 Abel 60, 61, 67 Abraham 6, 6 n 12, 8, 23, 25, 27, 41, 79 n 21, 99 Adam 63 n 23, 117, 118 Alcimus 191 altar 38, 46, 49, 112, 116, 180, 182, 193 n 39 Alexandria 197-199, 201, 202, 202 n 22, 204, 205, 207, 207 n 41, 208, 211, 214, 219 Alexander the Great 151, 213-217, 218 n 33, 225 Amos 140, 141, 145, 147-149, 149 n 21, 149 n 23 Amos, book of 141, 141 n 1 Anaqim 91, 102 Andronicus 185 Animal Apocalypse 91, 92, 96, 97 n 28, 98, 99, 99 n 35, 102 Antiochus IV 151, 178 n 1, 186, 200, 214, 214 n 17, 222-224 Aramaic Levi 153 Aristeas 198 Aristeas, letter of 138, 197-199, 201, 204-206, 206 n 37, 207-209, 215, 217 arrogance 151, 155, 159, 160, 160 n 30, 219, 221 Asher 38 Astronomical Book 153 authority 36, 141, 151, 151 n 1, 152, 153, 155, 156-158, 158 n 20, 159-161, 205 Ben Sira (author) 30-32, 36, 41-44, 46-48, 48 n 70, 50-53, 56, 58, 105-123, 106 n 3, 107 n 4, 108 n 7, 110 n 13, 111, 111 n 23, 112 n 25, 116 n 46, 117 n 51, 121 n 72, 122 n 73, 140-141, 143, 143 n 10, 144, 145, 149, 152, 152 n 5, 153-156, 161, 170 n 32, 174, 205 Ben Sira, book of, see Sirach, book of Bereshit Rabbati 100 Boaz 127, 130-132, 132 n 14, 133, 136, 137, 137 n 25 Cain 60, 61, 67 Caleb 28 n 15 Canaan 10 n 31, 91, 99, 101, 102 Christianity 72, 95 Cicero 202, 203, 205 n 32 compiler of 2 Maccabees 180, 180 n 5, 181 n 9, 182, 182 n 12, 183 n 13, 184 covenant 12, 12 n 38, 46, 62, 63, 64 n 27, 106, 108, 110, 111, 117, 140

https://doi.org/10.1515/ 9783110596373-015

234  Index Covenant, Ark of the 52, 62, 79-81 Covenant, Book of the 12 covenant, Davidic 52 covenant loyalty 106 covenant, priestly 52 Chronicles, Book of 30, 56-58, 66, 137 n 25 creation 58, 58 n 9, 65, 65 n 31, 106, 117, 118, 118 n 56, 119-122, 153, 154, 192, 192 n 36, 221, 221 n 40, 222, 224 cult 57, 76, 79, 81, 105, 106, 106 n 3, 108, 108 n 6, 109 n 11, 110, 111-116, 116 n 46, 117, 118 119, 120, 121, 218, 224 cult, sacrificial 108, 108 n 6, 109, 111, 113, 120, 121, 121 n 72, 122 cultural memory 56-58, 66-68 Cyropaidia 211, 215, 216 Cyrus 215, 216 Daniel, the court tales of 128, 135 David 31, 35, 45, 50, 51, 56-58, 58 n 9, 58 n 7, 59, 60, 60 n 12, 60 n 13, 61, 61 n 15, 61 n 17, 62, 62 n 21, 63, 63 n 23, 64-67, 67 n 42, 68, 68 n 48, 71, 72, 72 n 2, 73, 74, 74 n 6, 75-84, 86-88, 128, 133, 134, 137 David, city of 57, 79 Davidic Messiah 58 Davidic Psalm 60, 61 Dead Sea Scrolls 68 n 47, 97, 100, 138, 151 n 1, 154, 156, 160, 161 Decalogue 12 Demetrius 180 n 7, 191, 224 Deuteronomy, Book of 5, 8, 21-23, 25-29, 110 n 16 divine council 113, 113 n 29 divine action 179, 183-184, 187, 189 divine intervention 180, 184 Dramatis Personae 9, 79 Dura-Europos 71, 77 n 16, 77 n 17, 79, 82, 86-88 Dura Synagogue 72, 77, 81, 83-85 Eden, garden of 117, 118, 121 Edenic imagery 117 Elioud 91-95, 95 n 14, 95 n 19, 96-99, 102 Eleazar 50, 187, 188 Eli 30, 39, 40, 43, 45, 48-50, 53, 62 Elimelech 129, 131, 132, 132 n 11, 133, 134

Index  235

Elijah 32, 41, 79 n 21, 84 Elisha 32 Ephraim 48 n 69, 87 Epiphany 214, 222, 222 n 47, 223, 224, 224 n 55, 225, 226 Esther 6 n 12, 59 n 11, 86, 128, 130, 136, 138 exegesis 3-8, 8 n 20, 9, 10, 10 n 31, 12 n 37, 18, 19 exegesis, ad hoc 13 exegesis, contextual 3, 7 exegesis, legal 3, 7, 18 exegesis, midrashic 8 exegesis, theological 3, 7, 15 Exodus, Book of 3, 4 n 2, 5, 7, 8, 11 n 35, 17, 21, 25, 26, 29, 62, 114 Ezekiel 32, 51, 81, 82, 116, 117 Ezekiel, the Tragedian 3, 6, 18 Ezra 130, 134, 134 n 19, 135, 137 Ezra-Nehemiah 127, 128, 133, 135-137, 137 n 25, 138 fate 100, 188, 190, 192, 193 n 39, 194 father, house of the 128, 130, 131, 131 n 9, 132, 132 n 11, 137 n 25 fear of YHWH 105, 106, 108, 113, 119, 120, 143, 156 Gabriel 98 Gaza 74-76 Geschichte, erzählte 178-180, 191 Geschichte, Theologisierung von 179 Geschichtsdarstellung 178, 179, 194 Geschichtsschreibung, theologische 178, 179, 183-187, 194 giants 91-95, 95 n 18, 96, 96 n 23, 97, 97 n 28, 98, 98 n 29, 99, 100, 101, 101 n 40, 102, 106 Giants, Book of 95, 99, 100, 100 n 38, 101, 101 n 40 Gibeonites 23, 23 n 6, 24, 26 n 11 God in third Maccabees 211, 212, 220, 221, 225 God of Israel 153, 179-182, 185, 186, 190, 192, 211, 222-224, 226 Goliath 60-62, 65, 67 n 42, 68, 71, 73, 74 n 6, 88, 102 n 45 Gorgias 186, 189 grace 179, 181 Hannah 31, 35, 36, 39, 40, 43, 45, 50, 53, 59 Hapax legomena 221

236  Index Hebrew Bible 3, 4, 7, 8, 17, 18, 30, 48, 71, 76, 91, 99, 121 n 72, 127, 129 n 6, 130, 131 n 9, 133, 134, 136 Heliodorus 184, 186, 218, 218 n 33, 222 n 47 Hellenistic kingship 211-214, 216, 217, 222-226 Herodotus 21 Hexaplaric tradition 26, 27 Hezekiah 31, 41 historiography, theological, see Geschichtsschreibung, theologische history, presentation of, see Geschichtsdarstellung Homer 198, 198 n 4, 206 n 36, 214 n 16 humility 151, 151 n 2, 152, 152 n 3, 153, 155, 156, 158, 159, 159 n 22, 159 n 23, 159 n 25, 160, 160 n 30, 161, 162, 170 interpretatio graeca 218 Isaac 23, 25, 99, 132 Isaiah 32, 35 n 22, 41, 113 n 29 Ishmael 98, 99 Isocrates 211, 215, 216, 217 Israel 6, 12, 13, 16, 17, 23, 24, 26, 27, 31, 34, 37, 38, 40, 43-47, 49, 52, 57-66, 68, 68 n 48, 71, 74, 76, 80-82, 84, 86, 88, 94 n 12, 96, 97, 105, 106, 110, 110 n 16, 110 n 18, 111, 113, 114, 116, 117 n 51, 118-121, 121 n 71, 122 n 73, 128-130, 131 n 9, 135, 140, 142, 144-145n 13, 145, 145 n 14, 147, 148, 149 n 23, 153, 154, 182, 186, 194, 211, 222-226 Jacob 25, 47, 87, 118, 119, 132 Jason the Cyrene 180, 180 n 6, 182, 183-185, 185 n 22, 188, 190, 194 n 41 Jeroboam 41, 48 n 69 Jeremiah 32, 35 n 22, 36 n 27, 37, 41, 51, 154, 184, 184 n 17, 205 n 35 Jerusalem 6, 36, 41, 52, 57, 74, 79, 82, 142, 143, 152, 161, 182, 184-185, 192, 205, 206, 217-219 Jerusalem Temple 105, 113-115, 115 n 42, 116-118, 120-122, 181-186, 186 n 23, 188, 189, 191, 211, 218 n 33, 226 Jeshua 32, 50 Jewish art 71, 72 Jewish worship 71, 77, 88 Jews 182, 182 n 10, 188 n 28, 189 Jonah 135 Jonathan 63-65, 68 n 48 Joseph 6, 6 n 12, 8, 10n30, 34, 60, 61, 61 n 15, 67, 84 n 31, 99 n 35

Index  237

Josephus 3, 6, 6 n 12, 6 n 13, 18, 18 n 51, 18 n 52, 18 n 53, 31, 31 n 8, 32, 36, 37, 37 n 32, 38, 39, 42-50, 52, 59 n 11, 60 n 12, 95 n 13, 122, 142, 201, 218 n 33 Joshua 12, 14, 14 n 40, 15, 21-26, 26 n 11, 27, 27 n 13, 28, 29, 31, 32, 41, 45 Joshua, Book of 21-29, 45 Jubilees, book of 93-98 Judah (place) 48 n 69, 74, 87 Judah (person) 133, 173 Judaism 71, 72, 84, 97 n 28, 102, 106, 118, 127, 135, 138, 151, 151 n 1, 152 n 3, 157, 181, 197 Judas Maccabee 180-183, 187 Judea 58, 128, 130, 131 n 10, 133, 135, 142, 143, 144, 161 Judges, book of 58 n 9 Judith 128, 130, 135, 138 King, good 211-220, 225, 226 Kings, book of 58 Late Antiquity 71, 72, 74, 101 n 40 law 127, 182-184, 189 Lebensweise, griechische 188, 192 Lebensweise, jüdische 180, 181, 181 n 10, 190-192 Levirate marriage 127, 129, 130, 132 Levi 9, 48, 48 n 70, 49 Levites 9 n 26, 46, 48, 48 n 70, 49, 53, 76, 137, Leviticus 4 n 2, 5 lexicography 164 Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (LAB) 56-61, 61 n 15, 62, 62 n 21, 63-67, 67 n 41, 68 Lot 132, 134 Lysias 187 Maccabees 56, 211, 223 Maccabees, first 58, 58 n 6 Maccabees, fourth 66 Maccabees, second 178, 179, 191, 223 Maccabees, third 211, 212, 215, 217, 218, 220, 221, 221 n 40, 221 n 42, 222-226 Mago of Carthage 197, 201-208 Manasseh 87 martyr 188, 192 martyrdom 81, 190

238  Index Masoretic Text (MT) 3-11, 14-18, 21, 22, 24-29, 30, 32, 42, 43, 45, 48, 50, 53, 167, 168 Menelaus the High Priest 183-185, 188, 193, 193 n 39 Meroth 72-76 messiah 58, 64, 65 n 32, 67, 68, 79 messianic 64-66, 68, 79, 82, 84, 86, 87 metathesis 165, 169, 170, 170 n 26, 170 n 27, 170 n 32 Mishnah 43, 43 n 54, 44, 53, 172 Moabites 127, 128, 130, 132, 132 n 11, 133-135, 137 mosaic 71, 72, 72 n 4, 73, 74, 74 n 6, 75-77 Mosaic, the Gaza 75, 76 Mosaic law 143, 144, 149 Mosaic Torah 154 Moses 3-6, 6 n 11, 6 n 13, 6 n 16, 7-10, 10 n 29, 10 n 30, 10 n 31, 11, 11 n 36, 12, 12 n 38, 13, 14, 14 n 40, 15, 16, 16 n 43, 17, 18, 18 n 47, 18 n 51, 18 n 53, 19, 22-29, 38, 41, 46-51, 62, 62 n 21, 84, 99 n 35, 119 n 59, 121, 122 n 72, 122, 152, 156, 161, 198 n6 Moses, infancy story of 8, 10, 10 n 29, 11, 11 n 36 Moses, tent of 16, 16 n 43 Naomi 127, 130-132, 132 n 11, 132 n 14, 133, 136, 137, 137 n 25 Napheleim 92, 93, 96 n 23 Nathan 32, 84 Nazirite 30, 32, 33, 35, 40, 42, 43, 43 n 52, 44, 53 Nehemiah 130, 135 Nephilim 91, 93, 94 n 9, 96, 96 n 23, 98-100, 102 Nicanor 183, 184, 187, 188 n 29, 191, 192 Noah 94 n 9, 99, 102 nomistic corrections 21 Numbers, Book of 4 n 2, 5, 8, 25, 26, 29 Old Greek 4, 21-26, 26 n 11, 27, 27 n 13, 27 n 14, 28, 29 Old Testament 30, 56 Onias the High Priest 34, 36, 143-144, 183-184, 184 n 17, 185, 185 n 20, 188, 190 On Farming 198, 201-203, 205, 207 Orpah 62, 68, 68 n 45, 131 Orpheus 75, 76, 84, 85, 86 Palestine 71, 72, 74, 74 n 6, 75, 142 parallelism, synthetical 60

Index  239

Pentateuch 21-23, 28, 28 n 15, 121-122 n 72 Peri basileias 215, 217 persecution 178 n 1, 183 Philo 3, 6, 6 n 11, 18, 31, 31 n 7, 32, 39, 39 n 40, 41-47, 53, 56, 66, 152, 153, 198 n 6, 218 Philocrates 197, 198, 198 n 2 Phinehas 32, 50, 52, 143 n 8 piety 105, 106, 108, 109, 113, 117, 119-121, 162, 198 n 2 Pliny 202-208 Praise of the Ancestors 34, 36, 41, 50, 51, 53, 117, 118, 122, 156 pride 151, 151 n 2, 152, 153, 155, 156, 160, 162 n 34, 218 n 35, 221 priest 30, 32-36, 45, 46, 48, 49, 49 n 72, 50, 51, 51 n 81, 53, 63, 82, 105-109, 114116, 116 n 45, 117, 118, 121, 122, 137, 142 n 5, 143, 157-161 Priest, Aaronide 115, 115 n 40 Priest, Levitical 30, 53 Priestly source 114, 121 n 71 priesthood 35, 48, 48 n 70, 50, 51, 58, 110, 161 prophet 4, 7, 17, 30-34, 35 n 22, 37, 39, 42-47, 50, 52, 53, 58-60, 63, 66, 71, 82, 84, 86, 111 n 23, 140, 141, 144, 145, 145 n 14, 147-149, 155 prophetic literature 140, 145, 145 n 14 Psalms, book of 58, 58 n 7 Pseudo-Philo 31, 32, 39, 42, 42 n 50, 44-48, 50, 53, 56-58, 58 n 9, 59, 59 n 10, 61, 62, 62 n 20, 63, 63 n 24, 65, 65 n 31, 67, 68 Ptolemaic rulers 200, 201 Ptolemy son of Dorymenes 193 Ptolemy IV Philopator 211, 212, 212 n 6, 217, 218, 218 n 33, 219 n 36, 220, 222, 225, 226 Qumran 31, 31 n 6, 32, 45, 56, 58, 76 n 14, 92-94, 99, 99 n 34, 99 n 35, 100, 100 n 38, 101 n 40, 151, 173 n 42 Rehoboam 41 Rome 191, 197, 199, 199 n 10, 200, 200 n 16, 201, 202, 202 n 22, 206, 206 n 38, 207, 206-207 n 38, 214 n 17 Roman Empire 197, 199 n 10, 208 Rosh Hashanah 118, 118 n 56 Ruth 62, 67, 127-129, 129 n 6, 130-132, 132 n 11-14, 133, 134, 134 n 17, 135-137, 137 n 25, 138 Ruth, book of 127-129, 135, 138

240  Index Sabbath 187 Samson 27, 43, 44 Samuel 30-48, 48 n 69, 49-53, 58, 59, 59 n 10, 60, 61,63, 64, 78, 82, 84, 86 Samuel, First Book of 30-32, 42-44, 47, 48, 50, 53, 59, 67, 68 Sarah 4-5, 5 n 7 Saul 40, 41, 45, 46, 51, 52, 57-59, 59 n 10, 60, 61-65, 68, 68 n 48, 76, 78 savior 214, 222, 224-226 scribal haplography 35, 36, 53 Second Temple 31, 71, 72, 98, 100, 122, 127 n 1, 128, 130, 135, 136, 151 n 2, 161 Second Temple Judaism 151, 152 n 3, 157, 197 Second Temple period 32, 71, 98, 100, 122, 127, 128, 135, 136, 138, 151, 152 seer 44, 45 Seleucids 143, 179,186, 187, 191, 194, 201 Seleucus 180 n 7, 186 Septuagint (LXX) 3-8, 8 n 20, 9-11, 11 n 34, 11 n 35, 13-14, 14 n 39, 15-17, 17 n 46, 18, 18 n 51, 32, 40, 42, 43, 53 n 87, 56, 95 n 19, 117, 136, 197, 198, 198 n 4, 205, 205 n 35, 207, 221, 222 n 46 servant of God 21-28 Simon the High Priest 105, 106, 113-115, 115 n 39, 116-118, 122, 123 Sinai, Mount 8, 12, 12 n 38, 62, 122 Sirach, book of 32 n 10, 38, 57, 58, 71, 101, 105, 105 n 2, 106, 115 n 33, 122, 122 n 73, 138, 140-141, 144, 145, 147, 148, 149 n 21, 151, 151 n 1, 152, 154, 156, 161, 162, 164, 164 n 2, 165, 165 n 3, 166, 166 n 7, 167, 169, 170, 170 n 32, 173 Sirach (author), see Ben Sira (author) Sodom 101 Solomon 4, 8 n 23, 38, 41, 47 n 65, 79, 135 structure, literary 109 structure, parallelistic 108 Synagogue 36, 71, 72, 72 n 4, 72 n 5, 74, 74 n 6, 76, 77, 77 n 15, 78, 79, 81, 82, 88 Syncellus 91-93, 93 n 6, 94, 94 n 12, 95, 95 n 13, 95 n 18, 96 n 23, 97-99, 102 Talmud, Jerusalem 72 Tamar 133 temple liturgy 71, 88 textual criticism 21, 164 Theologoumena 7 theology, creation 140, 149 theophoric 95 Timothy 186, 193

Index  241

Tobit 128, 130, 138 Torah 3-5, 5 n 9, 5 n 10, 6-8, 8 n 23, 12, 12 n 38, 15, 18, 50, 62, 77, 82, 105, 111, 117, 118, 120-122, 135, 143, 154, 158, 159, 181, 208 translation 197, 203-206, 206 n 38, 207, 207 n 41, 208, 208 n 42 tyrant 151, 216, 220, 220 n 39 Tyre 115, 188 Vorlage 8 n 23, 21, 101 n 41, 164, 166, 171 Watchers, Book of 91-95, 95 n 14, 96 n 23, 97, 98, 98 n 29, 99, 153 widows 127-133, 135, 137, 138, 144 n 13 Wiederaufnahmen 13 wisdom 105, 110, 113, 113 n 28, 114-116, 116 n 46, 117-122, 144 n 13, 154-156, 161, 168, 174 wisdom literature 105, 145 Xenophon 211, 215-217 Yom Kippur 118, 118 n 55 Zadok 50, 157, 158, 158 n 20, 160 Zadokite priesthood 161 Zervihel 62 Zion 113, 116